UC-NRLF 


B   M   713   15S 


RICHARD  THE  THIRD 


L-i   K.K^    <^  \ 


Richard  the  Third 


AND 


The  Primrose  Criticism 


'  A  primrose  by  the  river's  brim 
A  yellow  primrose  was  to  him, 
And  it  was  nothing  more." 


CHICAGO 

A.   C.  McCLURG  AND   COMPANY 
1887 


Copyright, 

By  a.  C,  McClurg  and  Co., 

A.D.   1887. 


HA(N 


I  ASK  you  to  listen  to  a  few  words :  first, 
a  few  general  remarks  on  criticism,  and 
then  an  illustration  of  them  from  the  play  of 
*  Richard  III.,'  or  rather  from  the  absence  of 
certain  things  in  the  play  of  *  Richard  III.,' 
which,  to  my  mind,  seem  to  indicate  that  it 
is  not  Shakespeare's  work. 

I  propose  to  say  a  few  words  on  one  of 
the  plays  usually  attributed  to  him,  —  a  play 
in  respect  of  which  I  find  myself  in  the  posi- 
tion of  poor  Peter  Bell,  seeing  little  more 
than  an  ordinary  primrose  where  I  perhaps 
hoped  to  see  a  plant,  a  flower  of  light.  I 
mean  the  play  of  'Richard  III.' 

James  Russell  Lowell, 
Chicago,  Feb.  22,  1887. 


Im77S4^ 


CONTENTS. 


iPart  I. 

PAGE 

The  Primrose  Criticism ii 


-♦- 


Part  II. 
The  Historical  Basis  of  Richard  III.     65 

♦ 

Part  III. 
The  Histrionic  Richards 109 


PART    I. 

THE    PRIMROSE    CRITICISM. 


"  Your  reasons  are  too  shallow  and  too  quick." 


THE   PRIMROSE   CRITICISM. 


"  The  pale  primroses, 
That  die  unmarried  ere  they  can  behold 
Bright  Phoebus  in  his  strength," 

may  have  contained  virtues  of  beauty  and 
suggestion  which  escaped  the  peculiar  eye 
of  Peter  Bell.  There  may  have  been  a  lan- 
guage in  them  which  to  other  eyes  revealed 
ideas  of  taste,  design,  wisdom,  creation.  To 
Peter  Bell  and  his  Primrose  Criticism  many 
another  object  of  beauty  in  nature,  art,  and 
literature  has  appeared  to  be  but  common- 
place, though  it  bore  the  impress  of  high 
origin,  and  carried  in  upon  other  minds  ex- 
quisite sentiments  and  edifying  speculations. 
The  historical  tragedy  of  'Richard  III.'  ex- 
cites no  admiration  in  the  common-sense 
mind  of  Peter  Bell.  He  fails  to  discover  its 
poetic   and   dramatic   merits,  but,  more  par- 


12  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

ticularly,  seems  to  be  oblivious  to  those  mas- 
terly touches  of  energy  and  grandeur  which 
declare  its  author  to  be  Shakespeare.     Prim- 
rose   Criticism    assumes    to   be  synonymous 
with  Common  Sense,  which  is  the  only  safe 
guide  in  the  study  of  any  subject,  whether 
it  be  the  Primrose  or  'Richard  the  Third.' 
It  is  to  be  regretted,  however,  that  Peter  Bell 
has  been  so  backward  in  coming  forward  with 
his   peculiar   critical  method ;  and  that,  as  a 
consequence,  the  world  has  been  studying  the 
"  thousand- souled  "  Shakespeare  for  three  hun- 
dred years  without  the  light  of  common-sense. 
So  uncommon  was  the  sense  of  Pope,  Dry- 
den,  rare  Ben  Jonson,  and  "  starry-minded  " 
Iviilton,  the  poet-eulogists  of  our  glorious  bard, 
that  they  accepted   base  counterfeits  for  the 
genuine    productions   of    his   inspired    pen ! 
So  uncommon  were  the  sense  and  scholar- 
ship of  the  distinguished  commentators  and 
editors,  —  Rowe,  Farmer,  Theobald,   Capell, 
Hanmer,  Steevens,  Johnson,   Malone,   Chal- 
mers, Douce,  Dyce,  and  Knight,  —  that  they 
were  unable,  with  a  life-long  study,  to  distin- 
guish between  the  genuine  and  the  spurious 
plays   of  Shakespeare  !     With   their  master- 
ful knowledge  of  Elizabethan  literature,  and 
their  familiar  acquaintance  with  the  English 


THE  PRIMROSE  CRITICISM.  13 

dramatists,  they  do  not  seem  to  have  had 
the  slightest  suspicion  that  '  Richard  III.' 
was  not  written  in  the  style  of  Shakespeare, 
or  that  it  was  unworthy  of  him  and  must 
have  been  the  production  of  an  inferior 
genius. 

Alas,  that  Peter  Bell  should  have  been  so 
tardy  in  making  his  appearance  !  But  Prim- 
rose Criticism  had  to  await  the  coming  of 
Peter  Bell,  and  Peter  Bell  the  advent  of 
Wordsworth.  It  is  certainly  only  a  coinci- 
dence ;  but  Peter  Bell's  criticism  of  the  Prim- 
rose was  almost  identical  with  Wordsworth's 
estimate  of  Shakespeare.  The  author  of 
'  Peter  Bell '  should  not  blame  poor  Peter  for 
a  dulness  of  vision  of  which  he  is  himself 
guilty.  On  the  authority  of  Mr.  Buckle, 
Wordsworth  once  told  Charles  Lamb  that 
Shakespeare  was  not  so  great  as  he  w^as  pop- 
ularly estimated  to  be,  and  thought  that  he 
could,  if  he  had  a  mind,  write  as  well  as 
Shakespeare.  "  But  then,  you  see,"  said  Lamb, 
"he  had  not  the  mindy  Wordsworth  looked 
upon  Shakespeare  through  the  very  spectacles 
of  Peter  Bell,  and 

The  primrose  by  the  Avoti's  brim 
A  yellow  primrose  was  to  him, 
And  it  was  nothing  more. 


/ 


14  RICHARD    THE   THIRD. 

But  to  all  eyes  that  wear  not  Peter  Bell's 
spectacles  the  world  never  grew,  before  nor 
since,  such  another  primrose. 

"  Beware  (delighted  Poets!)  when  you  sing 
To  welcome  Nature  in  the  early  Spring: 

Your  num'rous  Feet  not  tread 
The  Banks  of  Avon ;  for  each  Flowre 
(As  it  nere  knew  a  Sunne  or  Showre) 

Hangs  there,  the  pensive  head. 

"  Each  Tree,  whose  thick,  and  spreading  growth  hath 
made 
Rather  a  Night  beneath  the  Boughs  than  shade, 

(Unwilling  now  to  grow.) 
Lookes  like  a  Plume  a  Captaine  weares, 
Whose  rifled  Falls  are  steept  i'  th  teares 
Which  from  his  last  rage  flow. 

"  The  pitious  River  wept  it  selfe  away 
Long  since  (Alas  !)  to  such  a  swift  decay ; 

That  reach  the  Map,  and  looke 
If  you  a  River  there  can  spie  ; 
And  for  a  River  your  mock'd  Eye, 
Will  find  a  shallow  Brooke." 

Valuable  as  common-sense  may  be,  possibly 
the  sense  of  mai)  should  not  grow  too  com- 
mon, if  it  would  appreciate  the  most  uncom- 
mon sense  that  ever  yet  was  writ.  Let  it 
be  admitted,  however,  that  the  unadulterated 
Primrose  Criticism  fully  appreciates  Shake- 
speare's genius,  and  even  places  him  far  above 


THE  PRIMROSE  CRITICISM.  15 

the  ignoble  possibility  of  errors  and  vulgar 
faults  j  yet  it  attempts  to  stab  to  the  heart 
the  most  celebrated  offspring  of  the  poet's 
genius,  and  then  to  deny  its  Shakespearian 
legitimacy. 

It  is  to  be  supposed  that  a  shoemaker  is 
the  best  judge  of  a  shoe,  an  artist  of  a  pic- 
ture, and  a  poet  of  verse.  But  while  the  cob- 
bler's judgment  as  to  the  quality  of  the  shoe 
must  be  accepted,  the  soundness  of  his  judg- 
ment as  to  the  age  and  the  maker  of  it  may 
be  questioned.  The  poet  may  pass  judgment 
on  the  poetical  merits  of  an '  Iliad,' '  The  Faerie 
Queene,'  or  a  '  Richard  III.,'  but  his  poetical 
genius  and  instinct  alone  are  not  sufficient 
foundation  for  a  judgment  that  must  rest  on 
historical  data,  on  antiquarian  knowledge,  on 
records,  facts,  and  logic.  Let  the  poet  de- 
clare on  his  judgment  that  '  Richard  III.'  is  an 
inferior  production,  —  that  it  by  merit  holds  no 
high  rank  among  dramas.  Then  let  the  critic 
have  the  courage  of  a  Voltaire  or  a  Words- 
worth and  attack  Shakespeare  himself, — 
point  out  his  faults,  expose  his  blunders,  and 
show  wherein  his  genius  has  been  overrated. 
Here  is  critical  heroism  and  enterprise.  When 
Peter  Bell  turned  his  unique  optics  upon  the 
primrose,   and   stared    in    upon  its   delicate 


1 6  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

beauty,  he  did  not  have  the  temerity  to  argue 
that  as  the  primrose  is  nothing  but  a  prim- 
rose, therefore  the  Almighty  needs  to  be  re- 
lieved of  the  responsibility  of  having  created 
it.  But  Peter  Bell  grows  brave  as  he  scruti- 
nizes the  dramatic  flower  known  as  *  Richard 
III.'  To  his  superb  common-sense  it  is  but 
a  rank  and  unsightly  weed  of  low  and  vulgar 
origin.  "  But,  '  in  the  name  of  all  the  gods 
at  once,' charge  me  not,"  says  Peter,  "with 
the  unpardonable  offence  of  imputing  any 
fault  or  slightest  imperfection  to  Shakespeare's 
infallible  judgment  and  genius,  because  'Rich- 
ard III.,'  you  know,  must  not  be  attributed 
to  his  divine,  unerring  pen."  Sublime  crit- 
ical courage  !  Marvellous  veneration  for 
Shakespeare ! 

The  Primrose  Criticism  lays  down  the  new 
canon  that  whatever  a  genius  may  do  that  is 
unworthy  of  him  shall  not  be  attributed  to 
him,  but  shall  be  branded  as  a  literary  found- 
ling. Happy  the  artist,  general,  statesman, 
historian,  preacher,  or  poet  who  may  be  thus 
easily  relieved  of  responsibility  for  his  faults 
and  weaknesses  !  But  is  this  Common-sense 
Criticism  ?  It  is  undoubtedly  Primrose-sense, 
and  Peter-Bell-sense  put  to  criticism ;  but,  in 
the  name  of  scientific  and  literary  integrity, 


THE  PRIMROSE  CRITICISM.  17 

let  it  be  hoped  that  it  will  long  remain  very 
Uncommon-sense. 

The  arguments  employed  by  the  Primrose 
Criticism  in  its  attempt  to  rob  Shakespeare  of 
'  Richard  III.'  are  not  sound.  One  argu- 
ment stands  in  this  shape  :  Shakespeare  never 
wrote  deliberate  nonsense,  nor  knowingly  in- 
dulged in  defective  metre.  'Richard  III.' 
contains  deliberate  nonsense  and  premedi- 
tated defective  metre.  Ergo :  Shakespeare 
never  wrote  the  historical  tragedy  of  '  Richard 
III.'  With  all  due  and  unfeigned  respect  for 
him  who  advanced  this  argument,  it  cannot 
be  accepted  as  sound  and  reliable.  It  sug- 
gests itself  to  a  careful  student  of  the  Prim- 
rose method,  that  it  would  take  very  uncommon 
sense  at  this  time  to  discover  whether  Shake- 
speare's nonsense  was  deliberate  or  not,  and 
whether  he  indulged  in  defective  metre  know- 
ingly or  unknowingly.  The  discussion  of 
questions  of  this  character  is  as  futile  as  it 
is  unimportant.  But  if  Primrose  Criticism 
affirms  that  Shakespeare  never  wrote  nonsense 
nor  indulged  in  defective  metre  as  a  fact, 
there  shall  be  a  square  issue,  which  may  be 
settled  without  resort  to  any  transcendental 
speculations.  Shakespeare  did  write  non- 
sense, and   he   indulged   very   frequently   in 

2 


1 8  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

defective  metre.  Peter  Bell  must  be  devel- 
oping a  supernatural  power  of  vision  in  these 
latter  days  that  he  is  able  to  discover  in  every 
production  of  Shakespeare  absolute  perfec- 
tion of  poetical  form,  infallibility  of  dramatic 
plan,  unadulterated  wisdom,  and  impeccable 
fancy.  Surely  this  is  finding  "  infinite  deeps 
and  marvellous  revelations  in  a  primrose." 

There  is  not  a  play,  among  all  that  are 
attributed  to  Shakespeare,  which  can  be  said 
to  be  absolutely  free  from  nonsense.  Nor  is 
there  a  single  play  that  is  absolutely  free  from 
defective  metre.  These  are  the  very  faults 
which  our  poet's  detractors  have  most  suc- 
cessfully proven  against  him,  and  which  his 
admirers  have  most  unhesitatingly  admitted. 
Rare  Ben  Jonson  was  almost  prophetic  in  his 
honest  criticism ;  writing,  it  would  seem,  with 
his  eye  on  the  Primrose  critic  of  this  far-off 
time.  "  I  remember,"  says  he,  "  the  Players 
have  often  mentioned  it  as  an  honor  to  Shake- 
speare, that  in  his  writing  (whatsoever  he 
penn'd)  hee  never  blotted  out  line.  My  an- 
swer hath  beene,  would  he  had  blotted  a 
thousand.  Which  they  thought  a  malevolent 
speech.  I  had  not  told  posterity  this,  but 
for  their  ignorance,  who  choose  that  circum- 
stance to  commend  their  friend  by,  wherein 


THE  PRIMROSE  CRITICISM.  19 

he  most  faulted."  Editors  and  commentators 
have  been  severely  and  justly  criticised  them- 
selves for  attempting  to  correct  Shakespeare's 
nonsense  and  defective  metre.  ,  The  per- 
fection of  nonsense  has  been  employed  to  v 
explain  away  the  nonsense  of  Shakespeare ; 
syllables  have  been  added  to  or  subtracted 
from  his  lines,  and  absolute  prose  changed 
into  verse  to  mend  the  poet's  Hmping  metre. 
But  the  best  editions  of  Shakespeare's  works 
at  the  present  time  contain,  in  almost  if  not 
quite  every  play,  instances  of  nonsense  and 
of  defective  metre  which  have  fortunately 
been  rescued  from  the  literary  botchery  of 
over-nice  emendators  whose  delicate  tastes 
and  sensitive  ears  could  not  permit  Shake- 
speare's art  to  remain  in  its  original  and  now 
valuable  imperfection.  It  is  the  aim  of  the 
highest  Shakespearian  scholarship  and  editor- 
ship to  permit  this  age  and  all  the  future  to 
know  what  this  singer  really  sang,  and  to  let 

"  sweetest  Shakespeare,  Fancy's  child, 
Warble  his  native  wood-notes  wild." 

The  metrical  dissonance  of  an  Alexandrine 
or  a  blank  prose  line  introduced  into  the  har- 
mony of  heroic  verse  has  often  thrown  such 
critics  as  Steevens,  Seymour,  and  Collier  into 


20  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

the  very  anguish  of  hypercriticism  and  into 
those  emendatory  spasms  that  have  resulted 
in  the  infliction  of  wounds  of  metrical  correc- 
tions upon  the  original  text  of  Shakespeare's 
plays,  which  the  best  and  wisest  scholarship 
of  to-day  would  heal  and  obliterate. 

Primrose  Criticism  affirms  that  the  original 
text  of  Shakespeare's  plays  could  not  have 
contained  a  faulty  verse,  nor  a  passage  of 
obscure  sense,  nor  a  low,  unchaste  fancy. 
The  conclusion  is,  that  every  such  defect 
must  be  an  interpolation,  which  originated 
with  actors,  short-hand  reporters,  and  brain- 
less critics  of  the  Anti-Primrose  school.  This 
is  certainly  a  petitio  prmcipii,  if  we  are  to 
ignore  all  the  historical  and  scientific  data  on 
which  an  argument  for  the  genuineness  of  the 
text  should  be  based. 

The  scholarly  judgment  of  Richard  Grant 
White  had  not  been  bewitched  by  the  Prim- 
rose method  when  he  wrote :  "  Not  what 
Shakespeare  might,  could,  would,  or  should 
have  written,  but  what,  according  to  the  best 
evidence,  did  he  write,  is  the  only  admissible 
or  defensible  object  of  the  labors  of  his  editors 
and  verbal  critics."  This  is  true  common- 
sense  applied  to  the  study  of  Shakespeare ; 
and  no  critic  need  fear  that  he  will  be  "  laying 


THE  PRIMROSE  CRITICISM.  2 1 

himself  open  to  the  reproach  of  applying  com- 
mon sense  to  the  study  of  Shakespeare,"  who 
tramples  upon  this  canon.  It  may  require 
an  uncommon  sense  to  determine  what  Shake- 
speare might,  could,  would,  or  should  have 
written,  —  and  this  the  Primrose  Criticism,  in 
consistency,  should  never  attempt,  —  but  to 
determine  what  Shakespeare  did  write  may 
require  simply  that  ordinary  common-sense 
which  is  to  be  distinguished  from  extraor- 
dinary Primrose  common-sense. 

The  external  evidences  of  the  Shakespearian 
authorship  of  '  Richard  III.'  are  many  and 
indisputable. 

In  the  Books  of  the  Stationers'  Company, 
London,  the  play  is  attributed  to  Shakespeare. 
Four  editions  of  the  quarto  were  issued  during 
the  author's  lifetime.  The  first  edition  was 
published  in  1597,  according  to  the  Stationers' 
Registers.  This  first  edition  did  not  bear  the 
name  of  its  author.  It  was  published  anony- 
mously. All  the  subsequent  editions,  1598, 
1602,  1605,  1612,  1621,  1622,  1629,  and 
1634,  bore  the  name  of  William  Shakespeare. 
When  Shakespeare's  complete  plays  were  first 
published,  in  1623,  'Richard  III.'  was  in- 
cluded. Nor  has  that  play  ever  been  excluded 
from  the  undisputed  works  of  Shakespeare. 


22  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

This  is  at  XtdJsX  prima  facie  evidence  of  the 
Shakespearian  authorship  of  the  play.  If  it 
be  argued  that  some  doubt  is  justified  by  the 
absence  of  Shakespeare's  name  from  the  title- 
page  of  the  first  quarto  edition,  the  reply  will 
be,  that  on  the  same  ground  doubt  should  be 
cast  on  the  Shakespearian  authorship  of  '  Rich- 
ard 11.,'  'Romeo  and  Juliet,'  'Henry  IV.,' 
and  *  Henry  V.,'  which  even  Primrose  Criti- 
cism may  not  be  prepared  to  do.  At  least 
three  editions  of  'Richard  III.'  were  published 
during  the  lifetime  of  the  author,  bearing  his 
name,  nor  was  any  question  then  raised  as  to 
the  genuineness  of  the  play.  After  the  author's 
death,  as  has  been  stated,  this  tragedy  took  its 
place  in  all  the  folio  editions  of  Shakespeare's 
works,  and  has  not  in  a  single  instance  been 
denied  its  rightful  place  in  subsequent  editions. 

It  is  not  altogether  unimportant  as  an  argu- 
ment, that  this  play  has  passed  without  chal- 
lenge the  scholarly  and  critical  scrutiny  of 
Rowe,  Pope,  Theobald,  Hanmer,  Warburton, 
Johnson,  Capell,  Steevens,  Reed,  Malone, 
Chalmers,  Harness,  Singer,  Knight,  Collier, 
Halliwell-Phillipps,  Hudson,  Dyce,  White, 
and  Clarke,  —  a  score  of  editors  and  critics 
whose  several  and  united  scholarship  is  the 
pride  and  glory  of  English  letters.     It  will  take 


THE  PRIMROSE   CRITICISM. 


23 


a  more  vigorous  logic  than  Primrose  Criticism 
employs  to  set  aside  the  verdict  of  this  splen- 
did array  of  scholars. 

It  may  strengthen  the  confidence  of  the 
wavering  to  glance  at  some  of  the  allusions 
made  to  Shakespeare  in  connection  with  the 
play  of  '  Richard  III.'  by  contemporaneous 
and  immediately  succeeding  *  poets.  There 
does  not  seem  to  have  been  a  suspicion  in 
Shakespeare's  day  that  he  was  not  the  author 
of  this  tragedy,  or  that  he  had  perpetrated  the 
literary  fraud  of  putting  his  name  to  a  drama 
which  he  did  not  write. 

One  of  the  earliest  references  to  Shakespeare 
is  made  in  John  Weever's  Poem  (1599),  Ad 
Giilielmu77i  Shakespeare. 

"  Honie-Tong'd  Shakespeare  when  I  saw  thine  issue 
I  swore  Apollo  got  them  and  none  other," 

Of  this  "  issue,"  the  poet  mentions  ''Rose- 
checkt  Ado?iis,'"  "  Faire  fire-hot  VenuSj^ 
"  Chaste  Liicretia,^^  and 

*'  Romeo-Richard ;  more  whose  names  I  know  not." 

Francis  Meres,  in  his  '  Palladis  Tamia,'  1598, 
refers  to  Shakespeare  in  the  words  :  — 

"As  Plautus  and  Seneca  are  accounted  the 
best    for    Comedy    and    Tragedy    among    the 


24  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

Latins;  so  Shakespeare  among  y<=  English  is  the 
most  excellent  in  both  kinds  of  the  stage  .  .  . 
witness  .  .  .  for  Tragedy  his  Richard  the  2, 
Richard  the  3,  Henry  the  4,  King  John,  Titus 
Andronicus  and  his  Romeo  and  Juliet." 

There  was  a  rather  broad  anecdote  current 
in  Shakespeare's  time,  in  which  both  the  poet's 
and  the  actor  Burbage's  names  were  associated 
with  the  name  and  play  of  '  Richard  III.,' 
which  would  be  out  of  character  here.  But  this 
same  Burbage,  Shakespeare's  friend  and  the 
original  Richard,  is  introduced  as  one  of  the 
characters  in  a  play  entitled  '  The  Returne 
from  Pernassus ;  or  the  Scourge  of  Simony, 
pubHquely  acted  by  the  Students  in  St.  John's 
College  in  Camebridge,  1606.'  The  following 
lines  occur  in  this  play  :  — 

^^  Kemp.  Few  of  the  university  pen  plaies  well, 
they  smell  too  much  of  that  writer  Ovid.,  and  that 
writer  Metamorphosis,  and  talke  too  much  of  Pro- 
serpina &.  Juppiter.  Why  here  's  our  fellow  Shake- 
speare puts  them  all  downe,  I,  and  Ben  Jonson,  too. 
O,  that  Ben  Jonson  is  a  pestilent  fellow,  he  brought 
up  Horace  giving  the  Poets  a  pill,  but  our  fellow 
Shakespeare  hath  given  him  a  purge  that  made  him 
beray  his  credit. 

Burbage.  I  like  your  face,  and  the  proportion  of 
your  body  for  Richard  the  3.  I  pray,  M.  Phil,  let  me 
see  you  act  a  little  of  it. 


THE  PRIMROSE  CRITICISM.  25 

Philo.   Now  is  the  winter  of  our  discontent, 
Made  glorious  summer  by  this  sonne  of  Yorke,"  etc- 

In  a  religious  poem  on  '  Saint  Mary  Mag- 
dalen's Conversion/  written  by  '  C.  J.,'  1603, 
the  following  lines  occur  :  — 

"  Of  Helens  rape  and  Troyes  besieged  Towne, 
Of  Troylus  faith,  and  Cressids  falsitie, 
Of  Richards  stratagems  for  the  english  crowne. 
Of  Tarqiiins  lust,  and  Lucrece  chastitie, 
Of  these,  of  none  of  these  my  muse  now  treates, 
Of  greater  conquests,  warres  and  loves  she  speakes." 

Richard  Brathwaite,  in  '  A  Strappado  for  the 
Devill/  1 615,  writes  the  lines  :  — 

"  If  I  had  liv'd  but  in  King  Richard's  days, 
Who  in  his  heat  of  passion,  midst  the  force 
Of  his  assailants  troubled  many  waies, 
Crying  A  horse,  a  kingdome  for  a  horse, 
O  !  then  my  horse,  which  now  at  livery  stayes, 
Had  beene  set  free,  where  now  he 's  forc't  to  stand. 
And  like  to  fall  into  the  Ostler's  hand." 

If  it  be  kept  in  mind  that  these  allusions 
to  Shakespeare  and  his  '  Richard  III.*  were 
made  in  his  own  lifetime  and  during  the  time 
in  which  Burbage  was  gaining  celebrity  as  the 
principal  character  in  the  tragedy,  the  state- 
ment that  Shakespeare  was  credited  with  the 
authorship   of  '  Richard   III./   and  that   this 


26  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

tragedy  produced  a  deep  impression  on  liter- 
ary as  well  as  vulgar  minds,  will  be  admitted. 
John  Milton  was  one  of  Shakespeare's  most 
enthusiastic  eulogists,  and,  beyond  question,  an 
ardent  student  of  his  works.  It  would  be  re- 
markable for  liim  to  have  given  special  atten- 
tion to  '  Richard  III.'  without  discovering  that 
it  was  written  in  a  style  wholly  foreign  to  the 
manner  of  Shakespeare,  if  such  were  the  case. 
It  is  matter  for  wonder  that  Milton's  poetic 
tastes,  instincts,  and  judgment  did  not  equal 
the  Primrose  sense  of  Peter  Bell  in  detecting 
the  un-Shakespearian  character  of  that  trag- 
edy. It  is  still  more  surprising,  if  the  play  is 
so  very  commonplace  and  is  not  the  pro- 
duction of  Shakespeare's  genius,  that  glorious 
John  Milton  should  have  found  in  that  very 
play  some  of  the  most  striking  ideas  which  he 
has  introduced  into  '  Paradise  Lost,'  and  that 
he  should  have  quoted  from  that  very  play  in 
his  prose  works,  where  he  attributes  the  play 
to  Shakespeare.  Sir  William  Blackstone  and 
Edmund  Malone  could  not  but  think  that 
Milton  was  indebted  for  his  characterization 
of  Satan  to  these  lines  :  — 

"  Sin,  death,  and  hell  have  set  their  marks  on  him ; 
And  all  their  ministers  attend  on  him." 

Act  I.  Scene  3. 


THE  PRIMROSE   CRITICISM.  27 

In  '  Eikonoklastes/  written  in  answer  to 
*  Eikon  Basilike/  in  1690,  Milton  makes  this 
striking  reference  to  ^akespeare  and  the 
play  of  '  Richard  III. : '  — 

"  From  Stories  of  this  nature  both  Ancient 
and  Modern  which  abound,  the  Poets  also,  and 
some  English,  have  been  in  this  Point  so  mind- 
ful of  Deconun,  as  to  put  never  more  pious 
words  in  the  Mouth  of  any  Person,  than  of  a 
Tyrant.  I  shall  not  instance  an  abstruse 
Author,  wherein  the  King  may  be  less  conver- 
sant, but  one  whom  we  well  know  was  the 
Closet  Companion  of  these  his  Solitudes,  Wil- 
liam Shakespeare ;  who  introduces  the  Person 
of  Richard  the  Third,  speaking,  in  as  high  a 
strain  of  Piety,  and  mortification,  as  is  uttered 
in  any  passage  of  this  Book  and  sometimes  to 
the  same  sense  and  purpose  with  some  words 
in  this  Place,  I  intended,  saith  he,  not  only 
to  oblige  my  Friends,  bnt  mine  enejnies.  The 
like  saith  Richard,  Act  II.  Scene  i  :  — 

*  /  do  not  know  that  English  Man  alive. 
With  whom  my  soul  is  any  jot  at  odds, 
More  thajt  the  Infant  that  is  born  to-night ; 
I  thank  my  God  for  my  humility.^ 

"  Other  stuff  of  this  sort  may  be  read  through- 
out the  whole  Tragedy,  wherein  the  Poet  us'd 
not  much  License  in  departing  from  the  Truth 
of  History,  which  delivers  him  a  deep  Dissem- 
bler, not  of  his  affections  only,  but  of  Religion." 


28  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

As  the  great  poets  themselves,  including 
Jonson,  Milton,  Dryden,  and  Pope,  never 
questioned  the  Shakespearian  authorship  of 
'  Richard  III.,'  so  the  great  actors  who  have 
won  their  renown  in  Shakespearian  charac- 
ters, and  who  have  made  Richard  III.  one 
of  the  most  celebrated  histrionic  represen- 
tations of  the  English  stage,  have  never 
detected  that  Richard  was  not  Shakespeare's. 
Burbage,  Ryan,  Gibber,  Garrick,  Mossop, 
Henderson,  Gooke,  Kean,  Kerable,  Booth, 
Macready  —  all  the  great,  original  Richards 
—  have  had  as  firm  confidence  in  the  Shake- 
spearian authorship  of  this  character  as  they 
have  had  of  Hamlet,  Macbeth,  Goriolanus, 
Othello,  Shylock,  or  Lear.  It  is  ordinarily, 
if  not  extraordinarily  reasonable,  to  sup- 
pose that  actors  of  such  intelligence  and 
genius,  actors  devoted  to  the  study  and 
representation  of  Shakespeare,  would  be 
able  to  detect,  if  it  existed,  the  un-Shake- 
spearian  character  of  '  Richard  III.'  The 
universal  opinion  of  the  stage  is  not  easily 
to  be  set  aside  by  the  Primrose  Griticism. 
Peter  Bell  has  not  a  more  authoritative 
voice  than  Burbage,  Betterton,  Gibber,  Gar- 
rick, Kemble,  Gooke,  Kean,  Young,  and 
Macready. 


THE  PRIMROSE  CRITICISM. 


29 


The  judgment  of  learned  and  philosophi- 
cal students  of  Shakespeare  should  not  be  ig- 
nored in  a  discussion  of  this  character.  Yet 
Primrose  Criticism  is  peculiarly  and  signifi- 
cantly hostile  to  anything  that  approaches  the 
uncommon  in  sense,  learning,  scholarship,  or 
subtlety  of  criticism ;  hence  its  antipathy  to 
German  criticism,  and  the  scientific,  philo- 
sophical instincts  of  the  German  mind.  TJiere 
may  be  method  in  this  madness  when  Shake- 
speare is  under  discussion,  as  it  is  beyond  all 
dispute  that  the  Germans  are  the  broadest, 
profoundest,  and  most  scholarly  critics  and 
commentators  of  Shakespeare  in  the  world. 
Englishmen  must  admit  this,  as  the  able  and 
candid  Furnivall  has  done.  Lessing,  Goethe, 
Schiller,  Tieck,  Schlegel,  Ulrici,  and  Gervinus 
are  names  that  cannot  be  cast  into  shadow 
by  even  such  names  as  Pope,  Dryden,  John- 
son, INIalone,  Steevens,  Collier,  and  Halliwell- 
Phillipps.  If  these  open-eyed  German  critics 
see  more  in  the  primrose  than  the  littleness 
and  inferiority  of  it,  so  do  they  also  see  more 
in  the  dramatic  delineation  of  the  character 
of  Richard  III.  than  the  second-rate  genius 
of  a  Marlowe,  a  Peele,  or  a  Greene. 

Schiller,  with  a  true  anti-Primrose  spirit, 
closed  his  reading  of  *  Richard  III.'  with  the 


30  RICHARD    THE   THIRD. 

\  splendid  encomium  :  "  It  is  one  of  the  sub- 
limest  tragedies  I  know."  Ulrici  finds  in 
'  Richard  III.'  the  fifth  act  of  the  great 
tragedy  of  which  '  Richard  II.'  is  the  first. 
In  a  very  un-Primrose  fashion,  this  philoso- 
,  pher  makes  bold  to  say  :  — 

1  "  No  drama  shows  more  distinctly  than  Henry 
iVI.  and  its  continuation  Richard  III.  how  the 
two  sides  of  tragedy  and  comedy  —  according 
to  their  ethical  significance  —  meet  in  the  his- 
torical drama,  and  become  blended  into  a  higher 
mity." 

Schlegel  advances  a  similar  theory,  and  im- 
plies the  Shakespearian  authorship  of '  Richard 
III.'  when  he  says  :  — 


"These  four  plays  ['Henry  VI.' and  'Rich- 
ard III.']  were  undoubtedly  composed  in  suc- 
cession, as  is  proved  by  the  style  and  the  spirit 
in  the  handling  of  the  subject :  the  last  is  defi- 
nitely announced  in  the  one  which  precedes  it, 
and  is  also  full  of  references  to  it ;  the  same 
views  run  through  the  series  ;  in  a  word,  the 
whole  make  together  only  one  single  work." 

This  distinguished  scholar  thinks  that  the  Eng- 
lishmen's great  admiration  of  this  tragedy  "  is 
certainly  in  every  respect  well  founded." 


THE  PRIMROSE   CRITICISM.  31 

Dr.  Gervinus,  in  his  *  Shakespeare  Commen- 
taries,' unconsciously  arrays  himself  against 
all  Primrose  Criticism  when  he  bluntly  and 
confidently  says,  with  the  assurance  of  a 
scholar :  — 

"Richard  III.  is  Shakespeare's  first  tragedy 
of  undoubted  personal  authorship  ;  it  is  written 
in  connection  with  Henry  VI.,  and  appears  as 
its  direct  continuation." 

But  the  great  Professor  comes  into  still  closer 
colHsion  with  the  Primrose  Criticism  when 
he  says :  — 

"Richard  III.  shows  extraordinary  progress 
when  compared  to  Henry  VI.  .  .  .  The  poetic 
diction,  however  much  it  reminds  us  of  Henry 
VI.,  has  gained  surprisingly  in  finish,  richness, 
and  truth ;  we  need  only  compare  the  words  of 
Anne  at  the  beginning  (Act  I.  Sc.  2)  with  the 
best  parts  of  Henry  VI.,  to  find  how  thoroughly 
they  are  animated  with  the  breath  of  passion, 
how  pure  and  natural  is  their  flow,  and  how 
entirely  the  expression  is  but  the  echo  of  the 
feeling." 

It  would  seem  that  Primrose  Criticism  had 
involved  itself  in  a  vastly  greater  iconoclastic 
enterprise  than  it  had  bargained  for,  in  its 
attempt  to  disprove  the  Shakespearian  author- 
ship of '  Richard  III.,'  since  scientific  criticism 


32  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

demands  that  the  genuineness  of  all  these  re- 
lated historical  plays  be  invalidated  together, 
or  that  they  all  stand  together  in  their  un- 
questioned integrity. 

Attention  is  further  called  to  the  reasons 
laid  down  by  the  Primrose  Criticism  for  rob- 
bing Shakespeare  of  his  '  Richard  III.' 

It  is  asserted  that  the  tragedy  is  not  written 
in  Shakespeare's  style ;  that  it  proceeds  with 
a  different  gait ;  that  it  contains  nonsense  and 
defective  metre ;  that  it  is  devoid  of  humor 
and  eloquence ;  and  that  it  contains  whole 
scenes  where  the  author's  mind  seems  at 
dead  low-tide  throughout,  and  lays  bare  all 
its  shallows  and  its  ooze.  With  these  serious 
charges  made  against  the  tragedy,  singularly 
enough,  not  a  shadow  of  a  proof,  not  even  an 
illustration  or  a  quotation,  is  given  in  support 
of  the  charges. 

It  may  again  be  suggested  that  it  is  remark- 
able that  men  of  the  poetical  tastes  of  Jonson, 
Milton,  Dryden,  Pope,  Schiller  and  Goethe ; 
and  men  of  the  critical  acuteness  and  ripe 
scholarship  of  Johnson,  Steevens,  Malone, 
Hazlitt,  Lamb,  Halliwell-Phillipps,  and  Richard 
Grant  White ;  and  men  of  the  splendid  his- 
trionic genius  of  Burbage,  Garrick,  Cooke, 
Kean,  Kemble,  and  Macready,  liave  not  de- 


THE  PRIMROSE  CRITICISM.  33 

tected  the  im-Shakespearian  style,  the  alien, 
unknown,  and  vulgar  gait  of  this  remarkable 
'  Ricliard  III.' 

As  to  the  "nonsense,"  it  would  be  un- 
Shakespearian  if  it  were  absolutely  free  from  it. 
The  same  is  true  of  the  "  defective  metre." 
If  Sophocles,  yEschylus,  Corneille,  Racine,  or 
Voltaire  were  to  be  our  model,  then  Shake- 
speare would  be  full  of  "  nonsense."  The 
violation  or  utter  ignoring  of  the  Unities,  the 
trampling  under  foot  of  Aristotelian  rules  of 
dramatic  composition,  would  be  considered 
"  nonsense  "  by  the  classical  school.  But  if 
this  be  the  "  nonsense  "  for  which  '  Richard 
III.'  is  condemned,  then  must  many  a  play  of 
Shakespeare's  come  under  the  ban  of  con- 
demnation. Nor  is  this  the  only  kind  of 
"  nonsense  "  that  may  be  found  in  Shake- 
speare's plays.  Ben  Jonson  made  this  charge 
in  his  day  :  — 

"  His  wit  was  in  his  owne  power  ;  would  the 
rule  of  it  had  beene  so  too.  Many  times  hee 
fell  into  those  things,  could  not  escape  laughter : 
As  when  hee  said  in  the  person  of  Ccssar,  one 
speaking  to  him  :  '  Ccesar  thou  dost  ine  wrong!' 
Hee  replyed  :  '  Ccesar  did  never  wrongs  but 
with  just  cause : '  and  such  like  ;  which  were 
ridiculous.  But  he  redeemed  his  vices,  with 
his  vertues." 


34  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

Anachronisms  are  "  nonsense  "  to  those  who 
measure  by  the  classical  standards ;  but  if 
such  ''  nonsense  "  is  un-Shakespearian,  —  and 
none  would  seem  greater  to  Aristotle,  Ben 
Jonson,  or  Voltaire,  —  then  must  nearly  every 
play  of  Shakespeare's  be  denied  its  accredited 
merit  and  high  origin. 

*  Coriolanus  '  is  marred  and  disfigured  by 
the  "  nonsense "  of  Titus  Lartius  quoting 
Cato's  estimate  of  a  true  soldier,  when  Cato 
was  not  born  until  two  hundred  and  fifty  years 
after  the  time  in  which  Lartius  mentions 
him.  In  the  same  play  Menenius  Agrippa 
refers  to  Alexander  the  Great,  more  than  two 
hundred  years  before  the  conqueror  of  the 
world  was  born.  And  the  same  person 
speaks  of  "  the  most  sovereign  prescription 
in  Galen,"  six  hundred  and  fifty  years  be- 
fore the  great  physician  saw  the  light  of 
day. 

In  the  tragedy  of  '  Hamlet '  we  are  aston- 
ished to  hear  Hamlet  and  the  King  in  the 
tenth  or  eleventh  century  speak  of  the  school 
at  Wittenberg,  which  was  not  founded  until 
1502.  Then  reference  is  therein  made  to  a 
performance  of  the  play  of  '  Julius  Caesar,' 
which  took  place  at  the  Oxford  University  in 
1582  !    Several  references  are  made  to  "  brazen 


THE  PRIMROSE   CRITICISM,  35 

cannon "  which  were  not  in  existence  in 
Hamlet's  time.     Here  is  "  nonsense  "  ! 

In  '  Merry  Wives  of  Windsor/  one  may 
be  surfeited  with  "nonsense."  What  right 
has  Bardolph,  in  1400,  to  know  anything 
about  "  three  German  devils,  three  Doctor 
Faustuses  "  ?  What  sense  is  there  in  Shallow's 
threatening  Falstaff  with,  "  I  will  make  a  Star- 
Chamber  matter  of  it,"  when  the  Star-Chamber 
Court  was  not  in  existence?  Mill  sixpences 
were  first  coined  in  1561,  and  the  "Edward 
shovel-boards"  not  earlier  than  about  1550; 
yet  Slender  accuses  Pistol,  in  1400,  of  picking 
his  pocket  and  robbing  him  "  of  seven  groats 
of  mill  sixpences,  and  two  Edward  shovel- 
boards."  Mrs.  Ford,  in  a  most  unaccount- 
able fashion,  seemed  to  be  familiar  with  the 
tune  of  "  Green  Sleeves  "  one  hundred  and 
seventy-five  years  before  it  was  composed, 
which  was  in  1580.  And  Mr.  Page  had  heard 
that  "  the  Frenchman  hath  good  skill  in  his 
rapier,"  nearly  two  hundred  years  before  the 
rapier  was  introduced. 

In  the  '  Winter's  Tale  '  is  the  famous  "  non- 
sense "  which  provoked  the  ridicule  of  Ben 
Jonson,  to  which  Drummond  refers  :  — 

*'  He  said  that  Shakespeare  wanted  art,  and 
sometimes   sense ;  for   in  one  of  his  plays  he 


36  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

brought  in  a  number  of  men,  saying  they  had 
suffered  shipwreck  in  Bohemia,  where  is  no 
sea  near  by  loo  miles." 

To  any  sense  but  Primrose-sense  it  seems 
"  nonsense  "  for  one  to  put  into  a  drama  such 
a  dialogue  as  this  :  — 

"  Ant.  Thou  art  perfect  then,  our  ship  hath  touch 'd 
upon 
The  deserts  of  Bohemia  ? 

Mar.  Ay,  my  lord." 

In  '  Henry  VI.'  mention  is  made  of  Machi- 
avel,  who  was  but  two  years  old  when  Henry 
VI.  died. 

It  has  been  charged  that  it  is  "nonsense" 
for  the  dramatist  to  represent  Fortinbras,  in 
the  tragedy  of  '■  Hamlet/  as  appearing  at  a 
certain  time  in  Denmark,  and  in  an  hour 
and  a  half  returning  victorious  from  Poland. 
And  it  is  equal  "  nonsense "  to  represent 
Othello  as  passing  from  Venice  to  Cyprus 
in  a  few  moments  of  time. 

All  that  Bowdler  eliminated  from  the  text  of 
Shakespeare  —  "  those  words  and  expressions 
.  .  .  which  cannot  with  Propriety  be  read 
aloud  in  a  Family  "  —  must  be  branded  as 
"  nonsense."  The  mixing  up  of  tragedy  and 
comedy  in  the'  same  play  is,  by  some,  con- 
sidered "  nonsense."    It  would  indeed  be  diffi- 


THE  PRIMROSE   CRITICISM.  37 

cult  to  mention  a  species  of  "  nonsense  "  that 
may  not  be  found  in  Shakespeare.  But  there 
is  hardly  one  of  his  plays  that  has  less  "  non- 
sense "  in  it  than '  Richard  III.'  This  is  true, 
whether  the  "  nonsense  "  be  the  ''  nonsense  " 
of  vulgarity,  of  historical  inaccuracy,  of  un- 
naturalness,  or  of  the  violation  of  the  Unities 
of  time  and  place.  And  the  very  criticism 
which  would  on  the  Primrose  basis  rob  Shake- 
speare of  'Richard  III.'  would  rob  him  of 
nearly  every  one  of  his  great  creations. 

It  may  be  of  interest  to  take  at  least  a 
glance  at  the  suggestion  that  Shakespeare  was 
so  perfect  in  his  poetic  art  that  he  could  not 
have  written  in  faulty  style,  nor  in  violation 
of  any  poetical  canon.  It  is  well  known  that 
he  was  admired  by  his  contemporaries  and 
immediate  successors  as  a  natural  genius  rather 
than  as  a  trained  and  scholarly  artist. 

Ben  Jonson,  who  knew  Shakespeare  per- 
sonally, was  candid  in  saying  :  ''  Shakespeare 
wanted  Art.  .  .  .  His  wit  was  in  his  owne 
power ;  would  the  rule  of  it  had  been  so  too." 

Good  Thomas  Fuller  expressed  the  com- 
mon sentiment  of  the  seventeenth  century 
when  he  wrote  of  Shakespeare  :  — 

"He  was  an  eminent  instance  of  the  truth 
of  that  rule,  '  Poeta  no7i  Jit,  sed  nascitur;  '  one 


38  RICHARD    THE   THIRD. 

is  not  7nade^  but  born  a  poet.  Indeed  his 
learning  was  very  little,  so  tliat,  as  Cornish 
diatnonds  are  not  polished  by  any  Lapidary, 
but  are  pointed  and  smoothed  even  as  they  are 
taken  out  of  the  earth,  so  Nature  itself  was  all 
the  Art  which  was  used  upon  him." 

Berkenhead,  in  praising  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher,  most  justly  said  ;  — 

"  Brave  Shakespeare  flow'd,  yet  had  his  Ebbings  too, 
Often  above  Himselfe,  sometimes  below." 

Milton,  master  of  poetic  art,  with  taste  and 
instinct  exquisite,  implies  Shakespeare's  defi- 
ciency in  art  as  he  listens  to 

"  sweetest  Shakespeare,  Fancy's  child, 
Warble  his  native  wood-notes  wild." 

Dryden  honestly  says  of  his  idol :  — 

"  I  cannot  say  he  is  everywhere  alike ;  were 
he  so,  I  should  do  him  injury  to  compare 'him 
with  the  greatest  of  mankind.  He  is  many  times 
fiat,  insipid ;  his  comic  wit  degenerating  into 
clinches,  his  serious  swelling  into  bombast." 

As  compared  with  Jonson,  this  is  Dryden's 
estimate  of  Shakespeare  ;  — 

"  T\it  fiudtless  Johnson  equally  writ  well ; 

Shakespeare  madeycz;^//^,  but  then  did  more  excel." 

Again  this  noble  writer  says  :  — 


THE  PRIMROSE  CRITICISM.  39 

"  Shakespeare,  who  many  times  has  written 
better  than  any  poet,  in  any  language,  is  yet  so 
far  from  writing  wit  always,  or  expressing  that 
wit  according  to  the  dignity  of  the  subject,  that 
he  writes,  in  many  places,  below  the  dullest 
writer  of  ours,  or  any  precedent  age." 

Edward  Phillips,  the  nephew  of  Milton,  in 
his  '  Theatrum  Poetarum,'  1675,  says  :  — 

"  Shakespeare,  in  spight  of  all  his  unfiled 
expressions,  his  rambling  and  indigested  fancys, 
the  laughter  of  the  Critical,  yet  must  be  con- 
fessed a  poet  above  many  that  go  beyond  him 
in  Literature  some  deg^ree." 


'&' 


And  again :  — 

"  From  an  Actor  of  Tragedies  and  Comedies 
he  became  a  Maker ;  and  such  a  Make?-,  that 
though  some  others  may  perhaps  pretend  to 
a  more  exact  Deconirn  and  aconomie,  especially 
in  Tragedy,  never  any  express'd  a  more  lofty  and 
tragic  height ;  never  any  represented  nature 
more  purely  to  the  life,  and  where  the  polish- 
ments  of  Art  are  most  wanting,  as  probably  his 
Learning  was  not  extraordinary,  he  pleaseth 
with  a  certain  wild  Tend,  native  Elegance." 

Pope,  with  most  excellent  judgment,  wrote 
in  his  preface  :  — 

"  It  must  be  owned,  that  with  all  these  great 
excellencies,  he  has  almost   as   great   defects ; 


40  RICHARD    THE   THIRD. 

and  that  as  he  has  certainly  written  better,  so 
he  has  perhaps  written  worse,  than  any  other." 

Samuel  Johnson  made  bold  to  ascribe  cer- 
tain faults  to  Shakespeare,  by  saying  :  — 

*'  The  style  of  Shakespeare  was  in  itself  un- 
grammatical,  perplexed  and  obscure." 

The  criticisms  quoted  above  apply  to  the 
nonsense,  the  faulty  style,  the  defective  metre, 
and  the  occasional  commonplace  passages  to 
be  found  in  Shakespeare's  works. 

From  these  criticisms  the  conclusion  is  to 
be  drawn  that,  contrary  to  the  opinion  of  the 
Primrose  Criticism,  Shakespeare  wrote  non- 
sense and  indulged  in  defective  metre.  And 
this  further  conclusion  is  logical,  that  to  reject 
the  Shakespearian  authorship  of  '  Richard  III.' 
on  the  ground  that  it  contains  nonsense  and 
defective  metre,  would  warrant  the  rejection 
of  nearly  every  play  ascribed  to  Shakespeare. 
The  faults  of  '  Richard  III.'  are  not  un- 
Shakespearian.  And,  with  Professor  Rich- 
ardson, all  may  admit  that  "  this  tragedy, 
like  every  work  of  Shakespeare,  has  many 
faults." 

It  is  further  implied  in  the  Primrose  Criti- 
cism that  as  '  Richard  III.'  is  without  humor 
it  la^ks  one  of  the  infallible  characteristics  of 


THE  PRIMROSE  CRITICISM. 


41 


Shakespearian  method  and  genius.  Perhaps 
no  play  of  this  original  dramatist  adheres  more 
closely  to  the  classical  standard  with  regard  to 
its  tragical  unity  than  *  Richard  III.'  It  lacks, 
let  it  be  admitted,  the  unclassical  admixture  of 
comedy.  But  the  play  is  of  such  an  intensely 
cruel  and  tragic  nature  that  it  could  with  less 
consistency  than  any  other  play  admit  of  the 
introduction  of  a  comic  strain.  Its  very  di- 
abohsm  seems  to  forbid  any  rehef  to  the  horror, 
or  the  admission  of  any  ray  of  jest  or  clownish- 
ness  into  the  damnable  darkness.  If,  however, 
by  the  term  "  humor  "  we  may  include  the  idea 
of  wit,  sarcasm,  cunning  and  adroit  play  of 
words,  then,  certainly,  one  of  the  greatest,  if 
grimmest,  humorists  of  Shakespeare's  creation 
is  Richard  III.  There  are  lines  in  the  first 
soliloquy  that  contain  humor.  Gloster's  woo- 
ing of  Lady  Anne,  even  in  the  presence  of  the 
corpse  of  Henry  VI.,  is  not  only  most  eloquent, 
but  consummately  witty,  bordering  at  least  on 
the  humorous.  The  strawberry  subterfuge  by 
which  the  Bishop  of  Ely  is  pohtely  invited 
out  of  the  council  in  the  Tower,  is  a  cheerful 
incident,  if  nothing  more. 

Nevertheless,  it  is  true  that  this  picture  is 
very  sparingly  relieved  of  its  sombre  character 
by  the  comical  or   even  by  the  humorous. 


42  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

This  fact,  however,  cannot  rob  the  tragedy  of 
its  Shakespearian  character,  which  is  deter- 
mined by  its  positive  rather  than  by  its  nega- 
tive elements,  by  what  it  contains  rather  than 
by  what  it  lacks.  A  few  of  the  great  actors 
have  so  studied  this  play  as  to  find  in  it  rays 
of  light,  and  in  their  acting  they  have  relieved 
the  play  of  the  monotonous  horror  by  bring- 
ing out  the  wit  and  even  humor  which  they 
found  therein.  Kemble,  Cooke,  and  Kean  in 
particular  were  credited  with  the  ability  to 
find  and  to  set  forth  these  features  of  the  dark 
tragedy.  It  was  with  difficulty  that  they 
succeeded. 

On  what  grounds  the  Primrose  Criticism 
insinuates  that  '  Richard  III.'  reveals  a  lack 
of  patriotism  in  its  author  it  is  dif^cult  to  de- 
termine. If  to  portray  reckless,  heartless,  in- 
satiable ambition,  a  love  of  power  which 
tramples  underfoot  the  laws  of  God  and  so- 
ciety, —  if  to  hold  up  to  the  universal  gaze  for 
everlasting  execration 

"  That  foul  defacer  of  God's  handy-work; 
That  excellent  grand  tyrant  of  the  earth,"  — 

if  to  record  with  dramatic  force  the  diaboli- 
cal intrigues,  and  the  final,  just  calamities 
and  ruin  of  a  royal  assassin  and  red-handed 
usurper,  —  be  unpatriotic,  then    Shakespeare 


THE  PRIMROSE  CRITICISM.  43 

has  indeed  most  successfully  and  commend- 
ably  proven  himself  of  an  unpatriotic  spirit.  If 
patriotism  means  simply  loyalty  to  a  "  House  " 
or  an  administration  rather  than  to  the  coun- 
try, then  of  that  narrow  sort  of  patriotism 
Shakespeare,  the  author  of  '  Richard  III.,' 
was  not  largely  and  conspicuously  possessed. 
But  that  great  tragedy  was  written  by  a  pen 
which  had  been  inspired  with  the  loftiest  pa- 
triotism, —  a  love  of  country  and  the  rights  of 
men.  The  spirit  that  wrote  the  play  breathes 
in  the  patriotic  prayer  of  Richmond  :  — 

"  O,  now,  let  Richmond  and  Elizabeth, 
The  true  succeeders  of  each  royal  house, 
By  God's  fair  ordinance  conjoin  together  ! 
And  let  their  heirs  (God,  if  thy  will  be  so) 
Enrich  the  time  to  come  with  smooth-faced  peace. 
With  smiling  plenty,  and  fair  prosperous  days  ! 
Abate  the  edge  of  traitors,  gracious  Lord, 
That  would  reduce  these  bloody  days  again, 
And  make  poor  England  weep  in  streams  of  blood  ! 
Let  them  not  live  to  taste  this  land's  increase, 
That   would  with  treason  wound  this  fair  land's 


peace 


Now  civil  wounds  are  stopp'd,  peace  lives  again  ; 
That  she  may  long  live  here,  God  say  —  Amen  !  " 

Primrose  Criticism  insinuates  that  to  admit 
the  Shakespearian  authorship  of  this  play 
would  be  to  accuse  the  poet  of  therein  per- 
mitting his  mind  to  remain  "  at  dead  low-tide, 


44  RICHARD    THE   THIRD. 

and  lay  bare  all  its  shallows  and  its  ooze."  It 
is  difficult  for  one  to  understand  Schiller's  ad- 
miration of  such  a  shallow  and  oozy-minded 
tragedy.  And  if  these  lines  are  at  a  poetic 
and  dramatic  "  dead  low-tide,"  what  was 
"  Marlowe's  mighty  line,"  when  such  a  schol- 
arly critic  as  Chalmers,  in  turning  from  Mar- 
lowe's play,  must  say  :  — 

"  Certain  it  is  that  when  we  open  Shake- 
speare's Richard  III.  we  seem  to  mount  from 
the  uniform  flat,  wherein  we  had  been  travelling 
with  uncheered  steps,  to  an  exalted  eminence, 
from  whence  we  behold  around  us,  an  extensive 
country,  diversified  by  hill  and  dale,  refreshed 
by  many  waters,  and  traversed  by  roads,  lead- 
ing to  hospitable  mansions  : 

*  Glos.   Now  is  the  winter  of  our  discontent 
Made  glorious  summer  by  this  sun  of  York,'  " 

No  "  low- tide  "  performance  here,  to  the 
mind  of  the  Scotch  antiquarian  and  critic  ! 

All  men  have  not  been  able  to  detect  the 
shallows  and  ooze  which  the  Primrose  Criti- 
cism seems  to  find  in  '  Richard  III.'  Hazlitt 
had  certainly  seen  virtues  in  this  tragedy 
which  escaped  the  eye  of  Peter  Bell,  for  he 
wrote  :  — 

"  The  play  itself  is  undoubtedly  a  very  power- 
ful  effusion    of    Shakespeare's    genius.      The 


THE  PRIMROSE  CRITICISM.  45 

groundwork  of  the  character  of  Richard —  that 
mixture  of  intellectual  vigour  with  moral  de- 
pravity, in  which  Shakespeare  delighted  to  show 
his  strength  —  gave  full  scope  as  well  as  temp- 
tation to  the  exercise  of  his  imagination." 

Coleridge  must  have  found  great  excellen- 
ces in  this  play ;  and  his  keen,  critical  eye 
must  have  overlooked  the  "  shallows "  and 
"  ooze,"  else  he  could  not  have  written  :  — 

"  Shakespeare  here,  as  in  all  his  great  parts, 
develops  in  a  tone  of  sublime  morality  the 
dreadful  consequences  of  placing  the  moral  in 
subordination  to  the  mere  intellectual  being." 

Let  it  not  be  supposed  that  an  attempt 
is  here  made  to  prove  the  superiority  of 
*■  Richard  III.'  to  all  other  Shakespearian  pro- 
ductions. As  a  literary  work  it  cannot  hold 
rank  with  '  Hamlet,'  *  Othello,'  '  Lear,'  and 
many  other  plays  of  this  poet.  Some  may 
even  wonder,  with  Johnson,  Steevens,  and 
Malone,  why  it  has  been  so  universally  ad- 
mired, without  doubting  its  Shakespearian 
origin. 

Hazlitt  pronounces  '  Richard  IIL'  a  play 
for  the  stage  rather  than  for  the  study. 
Others  criticise  it  for  its  inadaptabihty  to  the 
stage.  Possibly  the  Gibber  adaptation  of  the 
play  was  better  calculated  to  produce  theatri- 


46  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

cal  effect  than  the  original,  but  there  can  be 
no  question  that  the  'Richard  III.'  of  Shake- 
speare is  the  more  perfect  and  admirable  in 
the  study.  Indeed,  the  Gibber  adaptation 
eliminates  portions  which,  in  the  study  and 
from  the  literary  standpoint,  are  the  finest 
portions  of  the  play,  and  rank  with  the  no- 
blest and  most  elegant  poetic  strains  of 
Shakespeare. 

That  which  would  be  "dead  low-tide," 
"  shallows,"  "  ooze,"  to  the  play-goer  and  to 
the  actor,  might  be  high-tide,  ocean  deeps, 
crystalline  purity  of  philosophic  thought  and 
poetic  form  to  the  student  and  moralist. 

Let  it  be  admitted  that  some  of  the  scenes 
and  dialogues  would  be  tedious  and  devoid  of 
good  taste  and  exciting  interest  on  the  stage ; 
the  same  admission  must  be  made  touching 
many  of  Shakespeare's  plays.  If  this  fault 
is  un-Shakespearian,  surely  there  is  hardly 
a  purely  Shakespearian  play  in  existence. 
There  are  entire  plays  of  Shakespeare  which 
have  never  been  popular  on  the  stage,  and 
quite  a  large  number  of  them  have  entirely 
disappeared  from  the  repertoire  of  the  Shake- 
spearian actors.  Who  of  this  generation  has 
witnessed  a  successful  and  popular  perform- 
ance of  'Timon  of  Athens,'  'Pericles,'  'Ti- 


THE  PRIMROSE  CRITICISM.  47 

tus  Andronicus/  '  Cymbeline/  '  King  John,' 
'  Henry  VI.,'  '  Troilus  and  Cressida,'  '  Measure 
for  Measure '  ? 

But  the  drama  is  not  to  be  judged  and 
fashioned  by  the  tastes  and  demands  of  the 
theatre  alone.  Doubtless  many  have  agreed 
with  Charles  Lamb  that  Shakespeare  cannot 
be  acted,  that  the  stage  is  not  great  enough 
for  his  dramatic  creations.  The  theatre  de- 
manded that  the  original  tragedy  of  '  Richard 
III.'  should  be  changed ;  the  change  was 
made,  and  the  play  thereby  gained  popularity 
for  the  time  being  on  the  stage,  but  lost  popu- 
larity in  the  study. 

Colley  Gibber  almost  destroyed  the  literary 
identity  of  the  great  tragedy  when  in  1 700  he 
adapted  it  to  the  stage  ;  yet  he  made  the  char- 
acter of  Richard,  whose  horrible  identity  he 
presented,  a  great  favorite  with  actors  and 
play-goers.  And  though  Garrick,  Gooke,  and 
Kean  achieved  fame  in  the  performance  of 
this  mutilated  play,  who  will  say  that  Shake- 
speare, in  revisiting  "the  glimpses  of  the 
moon,"  would  be  willing  to  adopt  the  "  adap- 
tation" and  applaud  Gibber  for  his  pains? 
Who  will  acknowledge  from  the  standpoint  of 
literary  dramatic  criticism  that  the  Gibber 
adaptation  is  equal  to  the  original   drama? 


48  RICHARD   THE   THIRD. 

Now  the  argument  is  this,  that  a  dramatic 
composition  may  be  of  high  excellence  from 
a  literary  and  intellectual  standpoint  which 
on  the  stage,  from  an  actor's  or  the  audi- 
tor's point,  would  prove  too  intricate,  ob- 
scure, tame,  or  even  revolting.  Such  a  play, 
however,  does  not  necessarily  reveal  the 
''  shallows  "  and  "  ooze  "  and  "  dead  low- 
tide  "  of  its  author's  mind  ;  it  may  show  the 
greater  heights,  depths,  powers,  and  splendors 
of  it. 

Astonishment  increases  when  this  new  Prim- 
rose Criticism  makes  the  remarkable  discovery 
that  'Richard  III."  is  devoid  of  eloquence, 
and  is  not  therefore  of  Shakespearian  origin. 
It  must  be  a  very  uncommon  taste  that  is 
deaf  to  the  eloquence  of  Richard's  soliloquies, 
of  Clarence's  dream,  of  Margaret's  curses,  of 
Richmond's  orations  and  prayers.  Did  not 
Gloster  woo  Lady  Anne  most  eloquently? 
What  can  exceed  the  beauty  and  pathos  of 
Edward's  eulogy  of  his  brother? 

"  K.  Edw.   Have  I  a  tongue  to  doom  my  brother's 
death, 
And  shall  that  tongue  give  pardon  to  a  slave? 
My  brother  kill'd  no  man,  his  fault  was  thought, 
And  yet  his  punishment  was  bitter  death. 
Who  sued  to  me  for  him  ?  who,  in  my  wrath, 
Kneel'd  at  my  feet,  and  bade  me  be  advis'd? 


THE  PRIMROSE  CRITICISM.  49 

Who  spoke  of  brotherhood  ?  who  spoke  of  love  ? 
Who  told  me,  how  the  poor  soul  did  forsake 
The  mighty  Warwick,  and  did  fight  for  me  ? 
Who  told  me,  in  the  field  at  Tewksbury, 
When  Oxford  had  me  down,  he  rescu'd  me, 
And  said,  Dear  brother,  live,  and  be  a  king? 
Who  told  me,  when  we  both  lay  in  the  field, 
Frozen  almost  to  death,  how  he  did  lap  me 
Even  in  his  garments ;  and  did  give  himself, 
All  thin  and  naked,  to  the  numb-cold  night? 
All  this  from  my  remembrance  brutish  wrath 
Sinfully  pluck'd,  and  not  a  man  of  you 
Had  so  much  grace  to  put  it  in  my  mind. 
But  when  your  carters  or  your  waiting-vassals 
Have  done  a  drunken  slaughter,  and  defac'd 
The  precious  image  of  our  dear  Redeemer, 
You  straight  are  on  your  knees  for  pardon,  pardon ; 
And  I,  unjustly  too,  must  grant  it  you  :  — 
But  for  my  brother,  not  a  man  would  speak,  — 
Nor  I  (ungracious)  speak  unto  myself 
For  him,  poor  soul.  —  The  proudest  of  you  all 
Have  been  beholden  to  him  in  his  life ; 
Yet  none  of  you  would  once  plead  for  his  life.  — 
O  God!  I  fear,  thy  justice  will  take  hold 
On  me,  and  you,  and  mine,  and  yours,  for  this. — 
Come,  Hastings,  help  me  to  my   closet.     O,  poor 
Clarence ! " 

Is  such   an   eloquence   unworthy  of  Shake- 
speare's pen? 

In  reading  Queen  Elizabeth's  farewell  to 
the  Tower  which  holds  "those  tender  babes," 
and  in  reading  Tyrrel's  description  of  the 
"ruthless  butchery,"  one  joins  with  Hazhtt  in 

4 


50  RICHARD    THE   THIRD. 

pronouncing  them  "some  of  those  wonder- 
ful bursts  of  feeling,  done  to  the  life,  to  the 
very  height  of  fancy  and  nature,  which  our 
Shakespeare  alone  could  give." 

Has  ever  an  actor  in  the  noble  character  of 
Richmond  doubted  that  he  was  pronoun- 
cing an  eloquence  equal  to  that  of  Henry  V. 
before  Harfleur,  when  on  famous  Bosworth 
field  he  harangued  his  troops,  closing  with 
the  spirited  and  thrilling  words  :  — 

"  Then,  in  the  name  of  God,  and  all  these  rights, 
Advance  your  standards,  draw  your  willing  swords  : 
For  me,  the  ransom  of  my  bold  attempt 
Shall  be  this  cold  corpse  on  the  earth's  cold  face ; 
But  if  I  thrive,  the  gain  of  my  attempt 
The  least  of  you  shall  share  his  part  thereof. 
Sound,  drums  and  trumpets, boldly  and  cheerfully; 
God,  and  Saint  George  !  Richmond,  and  victory  !  " 

Not  only  the  actions,  but  the  very  words  of 
Richard  on  that  fatal  field  were  eloquent :  — 

*'  Fight,  gentlemen  of  England  !  fight,  bold  yeomen  ! 
Draw,  archers,  draw  your  arrows  to  the  head  ! 
Spur  your  proud  horses  hard,  and  ride  in  blood  ; 
Amaze  the  welkin  with  your  broken  staves !  " 

*'  A  thousand  hearts  are  great  within  my  bosom  : 
Advance  our  standards,  set  upon  our  foes  ; 
Our  ancient  word  of  courage,  fair  Saint  George, 
Inspire  us  with  the  spleen  of  fiery  dragons ! 
Upon  them  !     Victory  sits  on  our  helms." 


THE  PRIMROSE  CRITICISM.  51 

As  Garrick  acted  the  part,  throwing  into  it 
the  highest  spirit  of  gallantry,  what  stirring 
eloquence  was  Richard's  in  the  scene  :  — 

"  K.  Rich.    A  horse  !  a  horse  !  my  kingdom  for  a 

horse  ! 
Catesby.     Withdraw,  my  lord,  I  '11  help  you  to  a 

horse. 
K.  Rich.     Slave,  I  have  set  my  life  upon  a  cast, 
And  I  will  stand  the  hazard  of  the  die ; 
I  think,  there  be  six  Richmonds  in  the  field  ; 
Five  have  I  slain  to-day,  instead  of  him  :  — 
A  horse !  a  horse  !  my  kingdom  for  a  horse  !  " 

If  eloquence  be  the  test,  *  Richard  III.'  is 
Shakespeare's. 

The  Primrose  Criticism  cannot  suppress  its 
mirth  at  the  appearance  of  the  ghosts  on 
Bosworth  field,  and  intimates  that  the  scene 
is  unworthy  of  Shakespeare,  and  hence  was 
not  his  creation.  Why  Peter  Bell  does  not 
laugh  at  the  whole  tribe  of  dramatic  ghosts 
and  every  other  sort  of  ghosts,  is  not  apparent. 

The  ghosts  in  *  Hamlet,'   '■  Macbeth,'  and 

*  Julius  Caesar '  are  as  open  to  criticism,  and 
are  as  provocative  of  mirth  as  the  ghosts  in 

*  Richard  III.'  Why  Banquo's  ghost  should 
appear  to  Macbeth,  and  the  ghost  of  the 
Royal  Dane  to  Hamlet,  and  the  ghost  of 
Caesar    to    Brutus,   without    challenging   the 


52  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

criticism  of  Peter  Bell,  while  the  appearance 
of  the  ghosts  of  Richard's  victims  on  Bos- 
worth  field  should  be  thought  laughable,  is 
perhaps  unworthy  of  serious  inquiry.  Whether 
any  ghost  scene  be  pleasing  or  not  to  the 
reader  of  this  age,  there  is  a  seriousness  of 
mind  in  which  to  study  the  dramatic  re- 
quirements and  necessities  of  an  earlier  age, 
which  the  Primrose  Criticism  does  not  seem 
to  cultivate.  There  is  at  least  a  philosophical 
dignity,  which  should  ever  accompany  criti- 
cism, to  be  found  in  Schlegel's  remarks 
on  the  ghost  scene  in  *  Richard  III.'  In 
explanation  of  Richard's  heroic  death,  he 
says  :  — 

•'  He  fights  at  last  against  Richmond  like  a 
desperado,  and  dies  the  honorable  death  of  a 
hero  on  the  field  of  battle.  Shakespeare  could 
not  change  this  historical  issue,  and  yet  it  is  by 
no  means  satisfactory  to  our  moral  feelings,  as 
Lessing,  when  speaking  of  a  German  play  on 
the  same  subject,  has  very  judiciously  remarked. 
How  has  Shakespeare  solved  this  difificulty? 
By  a  wonderful  invention  he  opens  a  prospect 
into  the  other  world,  and  shows  us  Richard  in 
his  last  moments  already  branded  with  the  stamp 
of  reprobation.  We  see  Richard  and  Rich- 
mond in  the  night  before  the  battle  sleeping  in 
their  tents  :  the  spirits  of  the  murdered  victims 


THE  PRIMROSE  CRITICISM.  53 

of  the  tyrant  ascend  in  succession,  and  pour 
out  their  curses  against  him,  and  their  bless- 
ings on  his  adversary.  These  apparitions  are 
properly  but  the  dreams  of  the  two  generals 
represented  visibly.  It  is  no  doubt  contrary 
to  probability  that  their  tents  should  only  be 
separated  by  so  small  a  space ;  but  Shake- 
speare could  reckon  on  poetical  spectators  who 
were  ready  to  take  the  breadth  of  the  stage  for 
the  distance  between  two  hostile  camps,  if  for 
such  indulgence  they  were  to  be  recompensed 
by  beauties  of  so  sublime  a  nature  as  this  series 
of  spectres  and  Richard's  awakening  soliloquy. 
The  catastrophe  of  Richard  the  Third  is,  in 
respect  to  the  external  event,  very  like  that 
of  Macbeth ;  we  have  only  to  compare  the 
thorough  difference  of  handling  them  to  be  con- 
vinced that  Shakespeare  has  most  accurately 
observed  poetical  justice  in  the  genuine  sense 
of  the  word,  that  is,  as  signifying  the  relation 
of  an  invisible  blessing  or  curse  which  hangs 
over  human  sentiments  and  actions." 

It  is  certainly  refreshing  to  turn  from  the 
Primrose  sneer  to  such  a  philosophical  criti- 
cism as  this,  which,  if  it  serve  no  other  end, 
may  suggest  the  value  of  German  seriousness 
above  much  American  flippancy. 

But  why  should  Shakespeare  be  ridiculed 
for  dramatizing  tradition  and  history?  The 
subject  matter  of  the  ghost  scene  was   not 


54  RICHARD   THE   THIRD. 

invented  by  Shakespeare.  The  dramatist 
could  not  eliminate  that  part  of  Richard's 
experience.  The  historians  told  it  all  before 
the  poet  adapted  it  to  the  stage.  The  horri- 
ble dreams,  the  appearance  of  ghosts  and 
even  devils  to  the  tormented  mind  of  Richard 
on  the  eve  of  battle,  are  in  the  records.  Let 
the  Primrose  Criticism  attempt  to  dramatize 
this  experience  less  ludicrously ;  let  it  under- 
take to  do  it  more  grandly  and  impressively. 

Any  criticism  that  overlooks  the  principal 
character  of  a  drama  must  be  logically  defec- 
tive if  not  scientifically  worthless,  however 
charmingly  and  elegantly  it  may  be  presented. 
Where  criticism  contents  itself  with  pointing 
out  the  mote  that  dances  in  the  beam  of 
light,  the  withered  leaf  that  hangs  on  the 
branch  of  the  oak,  the  broken  feather  that 
still  clings  to  the  pinion  of  the  eagle,  the 
stain  on  the  sail  of  the  noble  ship,  the  spot 
on  the  face  of  the  glorious  sun,  the  justice 
of  the  method  may  be  seriously  questioned. 
One  of  the  most  remarkable  exhibitions  of 
criticism  ever  witnessed  was  the  recent  nota- 
ble Primrose  study  of  the  play  of  *  Rich- 
ard III.'  with  Richard  left  out.  Defective 
metre ;  poverty  of  style ;  lack  of  eloquence, 
humor,  and  patriotism  ;  superfluity  of  ghost ; 


THE  PRIMROSE   CRITICISM.  55 

intellectual  "  dead  low-tide,"  "  shallows," 
*' ooze  ;  "  and  deliberate  nonsense,  —  were 
dwelt  upon  with  elegance  and  subtlety  of 
assertion ;  but  what  of  the  character  Rich- 
ard III.?  Nothing,  absolutely  nothing  !  And 
yet  there  is  no  other  play  of  Shakespearian 
authorship  that  is  so  completely  concentrated 
in  one  character  as  this.  There  is  no  other  char- 
acter that  has  become  popular  for  the  stage  in 
which  all  the  interests  of  the  tragedy  in  which 
it  is  cast  centre  so  completely.  The  play  of 
*  Richard  III.'  leaves  stamped  upon  the  ima- 
gination and  memory  but  one  impression  — 
Richard. 

In  a  study  of  Shakespeare's  other  tragedies 
we  find,  for  instance,  that  Hamlet,  Othello, 
and  Macbeth  severally  share  with  one  or  two 
other  characters  the  interest  of  the  play  in 
which  they  appear.  But  Richard  is  himself 
alone.  He  is  the  whole  play.  And  as  he 
would  not  share  the  honors  of  the  kingdom 
with  another,  but  tyrannically  demanded  all 
and  all  the  power  usurped ;  so  will  he  not 
share  the  interest  of  a  dramatic  plot  with  an- 
other :  the  play  is  his,  the  stage  is  his,  as  the 
kingdom  is  his  alone.  "  Richard  is  the  soul, 
or  rather  the  daemon,  of  the  whole  tragedy." 
However  defective  the  metre,  however  lame 


56  RICHARD    THE   THIRD. 

the  Style,  however  tame  the  dialogue  in  cer- 
tain parts,  however  dreary  and  even  revolting 
some  of  the  events  and  scenes  in  this  tragedy, 
there  stands  a  character  which  no  pen  but 
Shakespeare's  could  have  delineated. 

The  most  characteristic  quality  of  Shake- 
speare's plays  is  the  wonderful,  unparalleled 
delineation  of  character  to  be  found  in  them. 
Shakespeare  was  pre-eminent  in  his  power 
*'  to  hold,  as  'twere,  the  mirror  up  to  nature ; 
to  show  virtue  her  own  feature,  scorn  her 
own  image,  and  the  very  age  and  body  of  the 
time  his  form  and  pressure."  It  is  not  the 
metre  of  the  tragedy  of  '  Hamlet '  that  distin- 
guishes it,  and  secures  the  immortality  of  its 
popularity,  but  the  delineation  of  the  char- 
acter of  Hamlet.  It  is  not  the  absence  of 
"nonsense,"  but  the  character  of  Shylock, 
that  keeps  up  the  world's  interest  in  the 
^  Merchant  of  Venice.*  It  is  not  the  literary 
style  of  the  play  of  '  King  Lear '  that  has 
placed  it  above  all  other  modern  tragedies ; 
that  is  accomplished  by  the  character  of  Lear. 
Neither  the  "  patriotism  "  nor  the  "  humor  " 
of '  Macbeth,'  but  the  character  of  Macbeth 
himself,  as  therein  set  forth,  makes  the  trag- 
edy great  in  literature  and  on  the  stage.  So 
is  it  with  the  tragedy  of  '  Richard  III. ; '  it  is 


THE  PRIMROSE   CRITICISM.  57 

great  because  therein  the  characterization  cf 
Richard  is  great.  No  dramatic  person  that 
Shakespeare's  mighty  pen  ever  drew  is  more 
worthy  of  his  genius.  No  character  has  won 
greater  fame  and  popularity  on  the  stage. 
No  character,  with  the  possible  exception  of 
Lear,  demands  in  its  representation  the  exer- 
cise of  greater  histrionic  genius.  There  have 
been  but  four  great  Richards  on  the  English 
stage,  and  they  are  the  acknowledged  greatest 
geniuses  of  the  stage.  If  another  hand  than 
Shakespeare's  drew  this  wonderful  character, 
then  let  not  Greene,  Marlowe,  Jonson,  or 
Fletcher  share  the  fame  of  the  "  Bard  of 
Avon,"  but  let  the  unknown  author  and  crea- 
tor of  'Richard  III.'  be  partner  in  the  pos- 
session of  the  greatest  fame  in  dramatic 
literature. 

Are  we  certain  that  Swift  wrote  the  '  Tale 
of  a  Tub,'  and  Scott  'The  Antiquary,'  be- 
cause nobody  else  could  do  it?  Then  Shake- 
speare drew  the  dramatic  character  of  Richard 
III.  because  nobody  else  could  do  it.  Yes, 
"  there  is  a  gait  that  marks  the  mind  as  well 
as  the  body ; "  and  if  not  in  the  metre  nor 
the  literary  style,  in  the  great,  impressive,  ter- 
rible character  of  Richard  III.  may  be  de- 
tected the  infallible,  unmistakable  mental  gait 


v/ 


58  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

of  Shakespeare.  It  is  submitted  whether  the 
Shakespearian  character  of  any  play  in  ques- 
sion  is  not  to  be  determined  rather  from  a 
study  of  the  persons  than  of  the  prosody  of 
the  play. 

Primrose  Criticism  will  condescendingly  ad- 
mit that  Shakespeare  may  have  adapted  the 
play  to  the  stage,  "  making  additions  some- 
times longer,  sometimes  shorter."  But  let  it 
be  noticed  that  the  true  author  of  the  original 
play  is  not  mentioned.  No  attempt  is  made 
to  prove  that  the  play  had  an  existence  in  lit- 
erature before  1597,  when  Shakespeare  pub- 
lished it.  Primrose  Criticism  is  not  wanting 
in  antiquarian  knowledge ;  let  it  therefore 
mention  for  the  world's  information  just  the 
play,  with  its  title,  date  of  publication,  author's 
name,  and  dramatic  plan,  which  Shakespeare 
laid  his  cunning  if  not  thievish  hand  upon, 
and  appropriated  to  himself  Will  Primrose 
Criticism  claim  that  it  was  Marlowe's  play? 
or  "A  Tragical  Report  of  King  Richard,  a 
Ballad,"  published  in  1586?  If  so,  there  is 
an  opportunity  for  candid  comparison  and 
argument. 

George  Steevens  tells  us  —  what  many  an 
antiquarian  well  knows  —  that  several  dramas 
on    the   present   subject    had    been   written 


THE  PRIMROSE  CRITICISM.  59 

before  Shakespeare  attempted  it.  If  Shake- 
speare's attempt  was  not  a  new,  an  original, 
and  a  genuine  production,  then,  in  the  name 
of  critical  fairness,  it  is  unjust  to  charge 
Shakespeare  with  literary  theft  until  it  has 
been  proven  who  else  did  write  the  play,  or 
that  it  had  a  previous  existence. 

With  all  the  poems  and  plays  on  this  sub- 
ject before  them,  after  careful  study  and  com- 
parison, no  editor,  commentator,  antiquarian, 
or  critic  has  been  able  to  find  the  original 
play  or  poem  which  Primrose  Criticism  ac- 
cuses Shakespeare  of  stealing,  revamping,  and 
publishing  in  his  own  name.  Common  sense 
and  common  fairness  suggest  that  there  never 
existed  such  a  play  or  poem,  and  that,  until 
it  is  produced,  Shakespeare  is  entitled  to  the 
honor  and  glory  of  having  been  the  author  of 
*  Richard  III.' 

That  Shakespeare  made  his  honey  from  the 
flov/ers  that  were  blooming  about  him ;  that 
he  did  not  create  the  silk  and  gold  which  he 
wove  into  the  rich  tapestries  of  his  fancy; 
that  he  hewed  from  existing  quarries  the 
blocks  out  of  which  he  constructed  his  gor- 
geous dramatic  palaces,  will  be  admitted. 
Not  a  play  of  his  unquestioned  authorship 
exists  that  does  not  bear  proofs  of  his  indebt- 


6o  RICHARD    THE   THIRD. 

edness  to  poets,  historians,  romancists,  and 
translators,  of  his  own  and  of  preceding  times. 
It  is  well  known  that  there  were  already  in 
existence  and  in  common  circulation  the 
stories,  poems,  and  chronicles  which  inspired 
or  suggested  the  plots  of  Shakespeare's  great- 
est plays.  The  stories  of  '  Hamlet,'  *  Mer- 
chant of  Venice,'  '  Romeo  and  Juliet,'  '  King 
Lear,'  '  Macbeth,'  '  Othello,'  etc.,  were  not 
original  with  Shakespeare ;  they  were  only 
modified  and  dramatized  by  him.  This  is 
the  work  and  mission  of  the  dramatist.  In 
such  a  sense  the  tragedy  of  '  Richard  III.' 
was  a  dramatization  of  an  historical  time  and 
person. 

For  the  historical  basis  of  this  tragedy 
Shakespeare  depended  upon  others.  He  did 
not  evolve  his  historical  plays  from  his  inter- 
nal consciousness.  That  he  received  sugges- 
tions from  poets,  novelists,  and  dramatists 
who  had  written  upon  the  same  subject,  is  as 
probable  as  that  he  obtained  necessary  infor- 
mation from  sober  and  learned  historians. 
But  detecting  Plutarch,  Boccaccio,  Sir  Thomas 
More,  Holinshed,  Hall,  Grafton,  Painter, 
Florio,  and  other  authors  and  translators,  in 
the  dramatic  works  of  Shakespeare  does  not 
justify  the  insinuation  that  he  was  a  plagiarist. 


THE  PRIMROSE  CRITICISM.  6 1 

Nor  will  a  scientific  criticism  attempt  on 
such  ground  to  base  an  argument  for 
the   un-Shakespearian  character  and  style  of 

*  Richard  III.' 

Having  noticed  what  seem  to  be  some  of 
the  defects  of  the  Primrose  Criticism  in  its 
discussion  of  the  Shakespearian  authorship  of 

*  Richard  III.'  it  may  not  be  unprofitable  for 
us  to  turn  to  a  short  study  of  the  sources 
from  which  Shakespeare  drew  the  subject- 
matter  of  his  tragedy. 


PART    II. 

THE  HISTORICAL  BASIS  OF  'RICHARD  III.' 


"  My  villainy  they  have  upon  record." 


THE    HISTORICAL    BASIS    OF 
RICHARD    III. 


OETHE  placed  Shakespeare  before 
all  other  poets  for  power  of  invention 
and  for  variety  and  originality  of 
characterization.  Yet  he  knew  that  the  dram- 
atist seldom,  if  ever,  invented  the  subject 
matter  of  his  plays.  The  jealousy  of  Greene 
has  not  biassed  the  judgment  of  fair-minded 
critics  in  determining  Shakespeare's  merit  for 
originahty.  The  author  of  '  Groats-worth  of 
Wit '  assailed  Shakespeare  after  this  fashion  : 

"  There  is  an  upstart  Crow,  beautified  with 
our  feathers,  that  with  his  Tygers  heart  wrapt 
in  a  Players  hide,  supposes  he  is  well  able  to 
bombast  out  a  blanke  verse  as  the  best  of  you  : 
and  being  an  absolute  Johannes  factotiiin  is  in 
his  owne  conceit  the  onely  Shake-scene  in  a 
countrie.    O,  that  I  might  entreate  your  rare  wits 

5 


66  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

to  be  employed  in  more  profitable  courses  :  and 
let  those  Apes  imitate  your  past  excellence,  and 
never  more  acquaint  them  with  your  admired 
inventions." 

It  would  take  more  than  a  groat's  worth 
of  such  wit  to  convince  the  world  that  the 
*  sweet  Swan  of  Avon,'  with  borrowed  or  with 
stolen  wings,  made 

"...  those  flights  upon  the  banks  of  Thames 
That  so  did  take  Eliza  and  our  James." 

Few  have  had  the  temerity  to  charge  Shake- 
speare with  aping  the  excellences  of  superior 
wits.     It  was  not  necessary  for  that 

"  Soule  of  the  Age  " 

to  depend  upon  the  invention  or  originality 
of  any  other  genius  of  his  time  ; 

"  Nature  her  selfe  was  proud  of  his  designs, 
And  joy'd  to  weare  the  dressing  of  his  lines ! " 

Though  Shakespeare,  in  common  with  all 
great  dramatic  poets,  has  borrowed  the  foun- 
dation material  of  his  plays  from  history,  fable, 
classic  lore,  and  romance,  yet  his  power  of 
invention  and  his  originality  of  genius  are  not 
to  be  questioned.  His  invention  is  shown, 
not  in  the  creation  of  the  figures  of  his  plays, 


HISTORICAL  BASIS  OF  'RICHARD  IIi:    67 

but  in  the  elevation  and  transformation  of 
them  into  poetic  and  dramatic  characters. 
This,  to  the  philosophical  mind  of  Ulrici,  "  is 
proof  of  greater  force  and  intensity  of  genius, 
greater  truth  and  depth  of  intellect,  than  if  he 
had  himself  invented  the  subject  matter  of  his 
dramas." 

For  the  subject  matter  of  the  historical 
tragedy  of  '  Richard  III.,'  Shakespeare  was 
indebted  to  several  sources,  —  historical  and 
poetical.  The  principal  sources  were  Holin- 
shed,  Grafton,  Hall,  Sir  Thomas  More,  Mar- 
lowe, '  The  True  Tragedy  of  Richard  III.,' 
and  the  '  Mirour  for  Magistrates.'  If,  as  Wal- 
pole  claims,  the  Shakespearian  *  Richard  '  is 
not  true  to  historical  facts,  then  the  blame  of 
it  must  lie  at  the  door  of  the  historian  rather 
than  of  the  dramatist.  It  is  beyond  question, 
that  the  world  bases  its  conception  of  Richard's 
character  on  Shakespeare's  play,  and  that  the 
dramatist  has  done  more  than  any  other  to 
prejudice  the  world's  opinion  to  the  theory  of 
the  unmitigated  diabolism  of  this  infamous 
tyrant  and  usurper.  But  it  will  be  found  that 
the  historians  approach  Shakespeare  in  the 
darkness  of  their  representations ;  they  ap- 
proach him  as  nearly  as  sober,  dispassionate 
history  may  approach  impassioned  drama. 


6S  RICHARD    THE   THIRD. 

The  physical  deformities  of  Richard,  on 
which  the  poet  makes  him  frequently  solilo- 
quize, both  in  ^  Henry  VI.'  and '  Richard  III.,' 
are  minutely  described  by  the  historians. 
Several  of  the  obscure  or  seemingly  trifling 
passages  of  the  play  are  suggested  by  Holin- 
shed  and  More,  and  they  appear  in  the  play 
in  almost  the  identical  language  of  the  histo- 
rians. In  illustration  of  these  points  reference 
is  now  made  to  the  corresponding  passages 
and  descriptions  found  in  the  play,  and  the 
historical  authorities  on  which  the  drama  is 
based. 

In  the  first  soliloquy  of  Richard  occur  the 
lines :  — 

"But  I,  —  that  am  not  shap'd  for  sportive  tricks, 
Nor  made  to  court  an  amorous  looking-glass ; 
I,  that  am  rudely  stamp'd,  and  want  love's  maj- 
esty, 
To  strut  before  a  wanton  ambling  nymph ; 
I,  that  am  curtail'd  of  this  fair  proportion, 
Cheated  of  feature  by  dissembling  nature, 
Deform'd,  unfinish'd,  sent  before  my  time 
Into  this  breathing  world,  scarce  half  made  up, 
And  that  so  lamely  and  unfashionable. 
That  dogs  bark  at  me,  as  I  halt  by  them  ;  — 
Why  I,  in  this  weak  piping  time  of  peace, 
Have  no  delight  to  pass  away  the  time  ; 
Unless  to  spy  my  shadow  in  the  sun, 
And  descant  on  mine  own  deformity." 


HISTORICAL  BASIS  OF  'RICHARD  III:       69 

After   his  wooing  of  Lady  Anne  he  again 
refers  to  his  bodily  deformity :  — 

"  And  will  she  yet  abase  her  eyes  on  me, 
That  cropp'd  the  golden  prime  of  this  sweet  prince, 
And  made  her  widow  to  a  woful  bed  ? 
On  me,  whose  all  not  equals  Edward's  moiety  ? 
On  me,  that  halt,  and  am  mis-shapen  thus  ? " 

Lady   Anne   refers   to    Richard's   physical 
condition  when  she  cries  :  — 

"  Blush,  blush,  thou  lump  of  foul  deformity." 

Again,  spitting  upon  him  and  wishing  her 
spittle  were  poison,  she  says  :  — 

"  Never  hung  poison  on  a  fouler  toad. 
Out  of  my  sight!  thou  dost  infect  mine  eyes." 

Queen   Margaret's   bitter  curse   contained 
the  words :  — 

*'  Thou  elvish-mark'd,  abortive,  rooting  hog  I 
Thou  that  wast  seal'd  in  thy  nativity 
The  slave  of  nature,  and  the  son  of  hell ! 
Thou  slander  of  thy  mother's  heavy  womb  I 
Thou  loathed  issue  of  thy  father's  loins  1 
Thou  rag  of  honour !  " 

Again  she  cries  :  — 
"  Sin,  death,  and  hell,  have  set  their  marks  on  him." 

In   the  third  part  of  '  Henry  VI.,'  Gloster 
soliloquizes :  — 


70  RICHARD   THE   THIRD. 

"  Why,  love  forswore  me  in  my  mother's  womb ; 
And,  for  I  should  not  deal  in  her  soft  laws, 
She  did  corrupt  frail  nature  with  some  bribe 
To  shrink  mine  arm  up  like  a  wither'd  shrub ; 
To  make  an  envious  mountain  on  my  back, 
Where  sits  deformity  to  mock  my  body ; 
To  shape  my  legs  of  ah  unequal  size  ; 
To  disproportion  me  in  every  part, 
Like  to  a  chaos,  or  an  unlick'd  bear-whelp. 
That  carries  no  impression  like  the  dam." 

In  the  eyes  of  King  Henry,  Gloster  was 

" an  indigest  deformed  lump." 

There  seems  to  be  no  exaggeration  of  Rich- 
ard's physical  deformities  in  Shakespeare's 
descriptions.  The  historian  gives  him  no 
better  aspect  than  the  dramatist.  The  '  His- 
tory of  King  Richard  the  Third,'  written  by 
Master  Thomas  More  about  the  year  15 13, 
contains  the  following  description  of  Richard, 
in  comparing  him  with  his  brothers  Edward 
and  Clarence :  — 

"  Richarde  the  third  sonne,  of  whom  we 
nowe  entreate,  was  in  witte  and  courage  egall 
with  either  of  them,  in  bodye  and  prowesse 
farre  under  them  bothe,  little  of  stature,  ill 
fetured  of  limmes,  croke  backed,  his  left  shoul- 
der much  higher  than  his  right,  hard  favoured 
of  visage." 


HISTORICAL  BASIS  OF  'RICHARD  III:      71 

Holinshed  drew  largely  upon  Sir  Thomas 
More  and  Grafton  for  his  material.  Shake- 
speare obtained  his  information  directly  from 
Holinshed  rather  than  from  More  or  Grafton. 
From  the  second  edition  of  Holinshed's 
Chronicles,  published  in  1586,  the  following 
description  of  Richard  is  transcribed  :  — 

"As  he  was  small  and  little  of  stature,  so  was 
he  of  bodie  greatlie  deformed;  the  one  shoulder 
higher  than  the  other;  his  face  was  small,  but 
his  countenance  cruell,  and  such,  that  at  the 
first  aspect  a  man  would  judge  it  to  savour  and 
smell  of  malice,  fraud,  and  deceit. 

"  When  he  stood  musing,  he  would  bite  and 
chew  busilie  his  nether  lip;  as  who  said  that 
his  fierce  nature  in  his  cruell  bodie  alwaies 
chafed,  stirred  and  was  ever  unquiet." 

So  much  for  Shakespeare's  historical  accu- 
racy in  his  description  of  Richard's  physical 
defects. 

When  Shakespeare  makes  Richard  say,  — 

"  I  am  determined  to  prove  a  villain," 

and  in  *  Henry  VI.'  puts  into  his  mouth  the 
terrible  self-imprecation,  — 

"Then  since  the  heavens  have  shap'd  my  body  so, 
Let  hell  make  crook'd  my  mind  to  answer  it," 


72  RICHARD    THE   THIRD. 

then  draws  a  picture  of  Richard  which  car- 
ries out  his  determination  into  blackest  deeds 
of  villany  and  most  helHsh  crookedness  of 
mind,  there  is  justification  for  it  all  in  the 
historic  records. 

Sir  Thomas  More  represents  Richard's 
moral  nature  to  be  as  deformed  as  his  phys- 
ical :  — 

"  He  was  malicious,  wrathfull,  envious,  and 
from  afore  his  birth  ever  forwarde.  .  .  .  Hee  was 
close  and  secrete,  a  deepe  dissimuler,  lowlye  of 
counteynaunce,  arrogant  of  heart,  outwardly 
coumpinable  where  he  inwardly  hated,  not  let- 
ting to  kisse  whome  hee  thoughte  to  kyll :  dis- 
pitious  and  cruell,  not  for  evill  will  alway,  but 
after  for  ambicion,  and  eidier  for  the  suretie  or 
encrease  of  his  estate.  Frende  and  foo  was 
muche  what  indifferent,  where  his  advauntage 
grew,  he  spared  no  mans  deathe,  whose  life 
withstoode  his  purpose." 

Holinshed  wrote  in  the  same  strain  :  — 

"  Now  when  his  death  was  knowne,  few  la- 
mented, and  manie  rejoiced.  The  proud  brag- 
ging white  bore  (which  was  his  badge)  was 
violentlie  rased  and  plucked  downe  from  everie 
signe  and  place  where  it  might  be  espied :  so  ill 
was  his  life,  that  men  wished  the  memorie  of 
him  to  be  buried  with  his  carren  corps.     He 


HISTORICAL  BASIS  OF  'RICHARD  HI.'      73 

reigned  two  yeers,  two  moneths  and  one  dale 
(too  long  by  six  and  twentie  months,  and  foure 
and  twentie  houres  in  most  mens  opinions,  to 
whome  his  name  and  presence  was  as  sweet  and 
delectable,  as  his  dooings  princelie  and  his  per- 
son amiable).  .  .  .  The  dagger  which  he  ware, 
he  would  (when  he  studied)  with  his  hand  plucke 
up  and  downe  in  the  sheath  to  the  midst,  never 
drawing  it  fullie  out :  he  was  of  a  readie,  preg- 
nant, and  quicke  wit,  wilie  to  feine,  and  apt  to 
dissemble :  he  had  a  proud  mind,  and  an  arro- 
gant stomach,  the  which  accompanied  him  even 
to  his  death,  rather  choosing  to  suffer  the  same 
by  dint  of  sword,  than  being  forsaken  and  left 
helplesse  of  his  unfaithfull  companions,  to  pre- 
serve by  cowardlie  flight  such  a  fraile  and  un- 
certaine  life,  which  by  malice,  sicknesse,  or 
condigne  punishment  was  like  shortlie  to  come 
to  confusion.  Thus  ended  this  prince  his  mor- 
tall  life  with  infamie  and  dishonor,  which  never 
preferred  fame  or  honestie  before  ambition, 
tyrannic  and  mischiefe."' 

In  the  above  estimate  of  Richard's  charac- 
ter, Holinshed  has  quoted  freely  from  Grafton, 
an  earlier  chronicler. 

It  is  singular  that  Malone  should  have  been 
of  the  opinion  that  Shakespeare  was  not  in- 
debted to  '  The  Mirour  for  Magistrates  '  in 
the  composition  of  this  tragedy.  He  says : 
"The    Legend   of    King   Richard   III.,   by 


74 


RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 


Francis  Seagars,  was  printed  in  the  first  edi- 
tion of  The  Mirrour  for  Magistrates,  1559, 
and  in  that  of  1575  and  1587;  but  Shake- 
speare does  not  appear  to  be  indebted  to  it. 
In  a  subsequent  edition  of  that  book  printed 
in  1 610  the  old  legend  was  omitted,  and  a 
new  one  inserted  by  Richard  Niccols,  who 
has  very  freely  copied  the  play  before  us." 
A  perusal  of  the  edition  of  ^  The  Mirour  for 
Magistrates'  published  in  1587,  ten  years 
before  Shakespeare's  play  was  published,  will 
reveal  almost  as  much  material  for  a  tragedy 
of  ^  Richard  III.'  as  may  be  found  in  More, 
Grafton,  or  Holinshed.  It  is  sufficient  to 
quote  from  the  table  of  contents  to  show  how 
fully  the  reign  of  Richard  III.  is  therein 
treated.  The  work  contains  poems  under 
the  following  titles  :  — 

"60.  How  King  Henry  the  Sixt,  a  vertuous 
Prince,  was  after  many  other  miseryes,  cruelly 
murdered  in  the  Tower  of  London,  the  22.  of 
May.  Anno.  1471. 

"61.  How  George  Plantagenet,  thyrd  sonne 
of  the  Duke  of  Yorke,  was  by  his  brother  King 
Edward  wrongfully  imprysoned,  and  by  his 
brother  Richard  miserably  murdered,  the  ti. 
of  January.  Anno  1478. 

"64.  How  the  Lord  Hastings  was  betrayed 
by  trusting  too  much  to  his  evill  Councellour 


HISTORICAL  BASIS  OF  'RICHARD  III:      75 

Catesby,  and  villanously  murdered  in  the  Towre 
of  London,  by  Richard  Duke  of  Glocester,  the 
13.  of  June.  Anno  1483. 

"  6(i.  The  complaynt  of  Henry  Stafford,  Duke 
of  Buckingham. 

'•'•6'j.  How  Collingbourne  was  cruelly  exe- 
cuted for  making  a  foolish  rime. 

"  dZ.  How  Richard  Plantagenet  Duke  of 
Glocester,  murdered  his  brothers  children, 
usurping  the  Crowne  :  and  in  the  3.  yeare  of 
his  raigne,  was  most  worthely  deprived  of  life 
and  Kingdome  in  Basworth  plaine,  by  Henry 
Earle  of  Richmond,  after  called  King  Henry 
the  Seaventh :  the  22.  of  August.  1485. 

"  73.  How  Shores  wife.  King  Edward  the 
fourths  concubine,  was  by  King  Richard  de- 
spoyled  of  all  her  goods,  and  forced  to  doe  open 
penaunce." 

Here  would  seem  to  be  a  rich  field  of 
resources  for  the  dramatist,  as  all  the  per- 
sons figuring  in  the  poems  mentioned  above 
are  to  be  found  in  Shakespeare's  tragedy  of 
'Richard  HI.' 

In  these  poems  the  same  character  is  given 
to  Richard  that  may  be  found  in  More, 
Grafton,  Holinshead,  and  Shakespeare. 

In  the  poem  on  Lord  Rivers  occur  the 
lines  :  — 

"  The  Duke  of  Glocester  that  incarnate  devill 
Confedred  with  the  Duke  of  Buckingham, 


76  RICHARD   THE    THIRD. 

With  eke  Lord  Hastings,  hasty  both  to  evill 
To  meete  the  King  in  mourning  habit  came, 
(A  cruell  Wolfe  though  clothed  like  a  Lambe.)  " 

In  the  poem  on  ^  The  complaynt  of  Henry 
Stafford,  Duke  of  Buckingham,'  that  con- 
spirator is  made  to  say  :  — 

"  For  having  rule  and  riches  in  our  hand 
Who  durst  gaynesay  the  thing  that  wee  averd  ? 
Will  was  wisedome,  our  lust  for  law  did  stand, 
In  sort  so  straunge,  that  who  was  not  afeard. 
When  hee  the  sounde  but  of  King  Richard  heard  ? 
So  hatefull  waxt  the  hearing  of  his  name, 
That  you  may  deeme  the  residue  of  the  same. 

So  cruell  seemde  this  Richard  third  to  mee. 
That  loe  myselfe  now  loathde  his  cruelty." 

The  poem  on  *  Richard  Plantagenet,  Duke 
of  Glocester,'  is  prefaced  with  the  remark  of 
the  supposititious  story-teller  :  — 

"  I  have  here  King  Richards  tragedy.  .  .  . 
For  the  better  understanding  whereof,  imagine 
that  you  see  him  tormented  w'ith  Dives  in  the 
deepe  pit  of  Hell,  and  thence  howhng  this 
which  followeth. 

*  What  heart  so  hard,  but  doth  abhorre  to  heare 
The  ruf ull  raigne  of  me  the  third  Richard  .'' '  "  etc. 

The  poem  represents  Richard  as  confess- 
ing  his    cruelties ;   acknowledging    that    he 


HISTORICAL  BASIS  OP  'RICHARD  III.'      ^^ 

"  right  did  not  regard,"  that  in  him  *'  trust 
turned  to  treason,"  and 

"  Desire  of  a  Kingdom  forgetteth  all  kindred." 

He  says  :  — 

"  For  right  through  might  I  cruelly  defaced." 

His  crimes,  he  admits,  brought  the  curses 
of  men  and  God  upon  him,  — 

'*  For  which  I  was  abhorred  both  of  yong  and  olde, 
But  as  the  deede  was  odious  in  sight  of  God  and 

man, 
So  shame  and  destruction  in  the  end  I  wan." 

At  the  close  of  the  poem  the  reader  of  it 
is  made  to  say  :  — 

"  When  I  had  read  this,  we  had  much  talke 
about  it.  For  it  was  thought  not  vehement 
enough  for  so  violent  a  man  as  King  Richard 
had  been." 

In  defending  the  uncertain  and  broken 
metre  of  the  poem,  the  reader  says :  — 

"  It  is  not  meete  that  so  disorderly  and  un- 
naturall  a  man  as  King  Richard  was,  should 
observe  any  metricall  order  in  his  talke  :  which 
notwithstanding  in  many  places  of  his  oration 
is  very  well  kepte  :  it  shall  passe  therefore  even 
as  it  is  though  too  good  for  so  evill  a  person." 


78  RICHARD    THE   THIRD. 

Thus,  in  all  these  old  authors,  the  villa- 
nous,  diabolical  character  of  Richard  is  set 
forth  with  most  vigorous  language. 

Shakespeare  seems  completely  justified  in 
painting  his  dramatic  portrait  with  the  darkest 
colors,  and  on  the  authority  of  the  historians 
he  holds,  "  as  't  were,  the  mirrour  up  to 
nature." 

History  justifies  the  bitter  warning  of  Queen 
Margaret :  — 

"  O  Buckingham,  beware  of  yonder  dog ; 
Look,  when  he  fawns,  he  bites  ;  and  when  he  bites, 
His  venom  tooth  will  rankle  to  the  death  : 
Have  not  to  do  with  him,  beware  of  him  ; 
Sin,  death,  and  hell,  have  set  their  marks  on  him; 
And  all  their  ministers  attend  on  him." 

Richard's  mother,  the  Duchess  of  York,  was 
historically  justified  in  heaping  upon  the  head 
of  her  cruel  son  the  following  accusations  :  — 

" thou  know'st  it  well. 

Thou  cam'st  on  earth  to  make  the  earth  my  hell. 
A  grievous  burden  was  thy  birth  to  me  ; 
Tetchy  and  wayward  was  thy  infancy ; 
Thy   school-days    frightful,    desperate,   wild    and 

furious  ; 
Thy  prime  of  manhood,  daring,  bold,  and  venturous ; 
Thy  age  confirm'd,  proud,  subtle,  sly,  and  bloody, 
More  mild,  but  yet  more  harmful,  kind  in  hatred  : 
"What  comfortable  hour  canst  thou  name, 
That  ever  grac'd  me  in  thy  company  ? " 


HISTORICAL  BASIS  OF  'RICHARD  III:      79 

The  very  conscience  of  Richard,  as  Shake- 
speare represents  it,  accords  with  the  verdict 
of  history :  — 

"  My  conscience  hath  a  thousand  several  tongues, 
And  every  tongue  brings  in  a  several  tale, 
And  every  tale  condemns  me  for  a  villain. 
Perjury,  perjury,  in  the  high'st  degree ; 
Murder,  stern  murder,  in  the  dir'st  degree  ; 
All  several  sins,  all  us'd  in  each  degree, 
Throng  to  the  bar,  crying  all, —  Guilty !  guilty !  " 

Richmond's  estimate  of  Richard  is  that  of 
history :  — 

"  A  bloody  tyrant,  and  a  homicide  ; 
One  rais'd  in  blood,  and  one  in  blood  establish'd ; 
One  that  made  means  to  come  by  what  he  hath,    " 
And   slaughter'd  those  that  were   the   means    to 

help  him ; 
A  base  foul  stone,  made  precious  by  the  foil 
Of  England's  chair,  where  he  is  falsely  set ; 
One  that  hath  ever  been  God's  enemy." 

It  must  appear  conclusive  that  Shakespeare 
did  not  depart  from  history  in  depicting  the 
character  of  Richard  III.,  but  that  in  the 
darkest,  most  diabolical  aspect  of  it  he  was 
supported  by  truth  and  fact. 

It  is  interesting  to  trace  to  their  sources 
the  obscure  references  and  seemingly  far- 
fetched   incidents   which   appear   quite    fre- 


So  RICHARD    THE    THUiD. 

quently  in  Shakespeare's  lines,  and  have  an 
historical  basis. 

In    Richard's   first   soliloquy   reference   is 
made  to  a  certain  prophecy :  — 

"  And,  if  King  Edward  be  as  true  and  just, 
As  I  am  subtle,  false,  and  treacherous. 
This  day  should  Clarence  closely  be  mevv'd  up 

•  About  a  prophecy,  which  says  —  that  G 
Of  Edward's  heirs  the  murderer  shall  be. 
Dive,  thoughts,  down  to  my  soul !  here  Clarence 
comes. 

{Enter  Clarence,  guarded,  with  Brakenbury.) 

Brother,  good  day :  What  means  this  armed  guard, 
That  waits  upon  your  grace  ? 

Clar.  His  majesty, 

Tendering  my  person's  safety,  hath  appointed 
This  conduct  to  convey  me  to  the  Tower. 

Glos.    Upon  what  cause  ? 

Clar.  Because  my  name  is  —  George. 

Glos.  Alack,  my  lord,  that  fault  is  none  of  yours ; 
He  should,  for  that,  commit  your  godfathers  :  — 
O,  belike,  his  majesty  hath  some  intent. 
That  you  shall  be  new  christen'd  in  the  Tower. 
But  what 's  the  matter,  Clarence?  may  I  know  ? 

Clar.  Yea,  Richard,  when  I  know ;  for,  I  protest, 
As  yet  I  do  not :  But,  as  I  can  learn, 
He  hearkens  after  prophecies,  and  dreams ; 
And  from  the  cross-row  plucks  the  letter  G, 
And  says  —  a  wizard  told  him,  that  by  G 
His  issue  disinherited  should  be  ; 
And,  for  my  name  of  George  begins  with  G, 
It  follows  in  his  thought,  that  I  am  he. 


HISTORICAL  BASIS  OP  'RICHARD  III:      8 1 

These,  as  I  learn,  and  such  like  toys  as  these, 
Have  mov'd  his  highness  to  commit  me  now." 

In  '  The  Mirour  for  Magistrates '  may  be 
found  these  lines,  put  into  the  mouth  of  the 
Duke  of  Clarence  :  — 

*'  For  by  his  Queene  two  Princelyke  sonnes  he  had, 
Borne  to  be  punisht  for  their  parents  synne  : 
Whose  Fortunes  balked  made  the  father  sad. 
Such  wofuU  haps  were  found  to  be  therein: 
Which  to  avouch,  writ  in  a  rotten  skin 
A  prophesie  was  found,  which  sayd  a  G, 
Of  Edwards  children  should  destruction  bee. 

"  Mee  to  bee  G,  because  my  name  was  George 
My  brother  thought,  and  therefore  did  mee  hate, 
But  woe  be  to  the  wicked  heads  that  forge 
Such  doubtfull  dreames  to  breede  unkinde  debate  : 
For  God,  a  Gleve,  a  Gibbet,  Grate,  or  Gate, 
A  Gray,  a  Griffeth,  or  a  Gregory, 
As  well  as  George  are  written  with  a  G." 

In  the  poem  on  Lord  Rivers,  in  the  same 
book,  reference  is  made  to  this  prophecy,  but 
with  a  different  interpretation. 

"  Sir  Thomas  Vaughan  chafing  cryed  still : 
This  tyrant  Glocester  is  the  gracelesse  G 
That  will  his  brothers  children  beastly  k3dl.'" 

Holinshed  mentions  this  prophecy  in  his 
'  Life  of  Edward  IV. :  '  — 

"  Some  have  reported,  that  the  cause  of  this 
noble  mans  death  rose  of  a  foolish  prophesie, 

6 


82  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

which  was,  that  after  K.  Edward  one  should 
reigne,  whose  first  letter  of  his  name  should  be 
a  G.  Wherewith  the  king  and  queene  were 
sore  troubled,  and  began  to  conceive  a  greevous 
Sfrudgfe  against  the  duke  and  could  not  be  in 

o  o  o 

quiet  till  they  had  brought  him  to  his  end.  And 
as  the  divell  is  woont  to  incumber  the  minds 
of  men  which  delite  in  such  divelish  fantasies, 
they  said  afterward,  that  that  prophesie  lost  not 
his  effect,  when  after  king  Edward,  Glocester 
usurped  his  kingdome." 

In  the  remarkable  dialogue  of  the  wooing 
scene  between  Lady  Anne  and  Gloster,  point- 
ing to  the  corpse  of  Henry  VI.,  Anne  cries  : 

"  O,  gentlemen,  see,  see !  dead  Henry's  wounds 
Open  their  congeal'd  mouths,  and  bleed  afresh ! 
Blush,  blush,  thou  lump  of  foul  deformity; 
For  't  is  thy  presence  that  exhales  this  blood 
From  cold  and  empty  veins,  where  no  blood  dwells ; 
Thy  deed,  inhuman  and  unnatural, 
Provokes  this  deluge  most  unnatural." 

This  incident  in  the  drama  is  based  not 
only  on  the  superstition  that  it  was  supposed 
the  wounds  of  the  victim  bled  afresh  at  the 
approach  of  the  murderer,  but  also  upon  this 
record  found  in  Holinshed's  Chronicle  :  — 

"The  dead  corps  on  the  Ascension  even  was 
conveied  with  billes  and  glaves  pompouslie  (if 
you  will  call  that  a  funerall  pompe)  from  the 


HISTORICAL  BASIS  OF  'RICHARD  III:       ^t, 

Tower  to  the  church  of  saint  Paule,  and  there 
laid  on  a  beire  or  coffen  barefaced,  the  same  in 
presence  of  the  beholders  did  bleed ;  where  it 
rested  the  space  of  one  whole  daie.  From 
thence  he  was  caried  to  the  Black-friers,  and 
bled  there  likewise  :  and  on  the  next  daie  after, 
it  was  conveied  in  a  boat,  without  priest  or 
clerke,  torch  or  taper,  singing  or  saieng,  unto 
the  monasterie  of  Chertsie,  distant  from  London 
fifteene  miles,  and  there  was  it  first  buried." 

In  Act  II.  Scene  3,  a  citizen  is  made  to 
cry,— 

"  Woe  to  that  land  that 's  govern'd  by  a  child  !  " 

Sir  Thomas  More  records  these  words  in 
the  oration  of  the  Duke  of  Buckingham  in  the 
"yeld  hall  in  London."  Buckingham  is  ha- 
ranguing the  people  in  the  interest  of  Richard, 
and  dwelling  upon  his  merits  for  the  high 
office  which  he  seeks, — 

"  Which  roume  I  warne  you  well  is  no  childes 
office.  And  that  the  greate  wise  manne  well  per- 
ceived. When  hee  sayde  :  Veh  regno  ctijus  7^ex 
puer  est.  Woe  is  that  Realme,  that  hathe  a 
chylde  to  theyre  Kynge." 

Reference  is  here  made  to  Ecclesiastes 
X.  16  :  — 

"Woe  to  thee,  O  land,  when  thy  king  is  a 
child." 


84  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

Shakespeare,  however,  must  have  found 
this  thought  in  More's  '  Life  of  Richard  III.,' 
or  in  Hohnshed,  who  has  transcribed  the 
same  oration  from  IMore  or  Hall  into  his  own 
*  Life  of  Edward  V.' 

At  a  council  held  in  the  Tower  (Act  IIL 
Scene  4)  there  are  present  Buckingham,  Stan- 
ley, Hastings,  the  Bishop  of  Ely,  Catesby, 
Lovel,  Gloster,  and  others.  For  some  un- 
known reason  Gloster  sends  the  Bishop  of 
Ely  from  the  Council  on  a  very  singular  er- 
rand in  these  words  :  — 

"  Glos.  My  lord  of  Ely,  when  I  was  last  in  Holborn, 
I  saw  good  strawberries  in  your  garden  there ; 
I  do  beseech  you  send  for  some  of  them. 

Ely.  Marry,  and  will,  my  lord,  with  all  my  heart." 

The  Bishop  retires,  and  after  a  short  time 
re-enters  with,  — 

"  Where   is  my  lord   protector  >    I  have   sent  for 
these  strawberries." 

There  seems  to  be  very  little,  if  any,  sense 
in  this  strawberry  incident,  yet  it  was  not 
invented  by  Shakespeare.  It  occurs  in  More 
and  Holinshed  in  the  following  language  :  — 

''These  lordes  so  syting  togyther  comoning 
of  thys  matter,  the  protectour  came  in  among 
them,  fyrst  aboute   IX.  of  the  clock,  saluting 


HISTORICAL  BASIS  OF  'RICHARD  IIi:      85 

them  curtesly,  and  excusying  himself  that  he 
had  ben  from  them  so  long,  saieng  merely  that 
he  had  bene  a  slepe  that  day.  And  after  a  little 
talking  with  them,  he  sayd  unto  the  Bishop  of 
Elye  :  My  lord,  you  have  very  good  strawberies 
at  your  gardayne  in  Holberne,  I  require  you 
let  us  have  a  messe  of  them.  Gladly  my  lord 
quod  he,  woulde  god  I  had  some  better  thing 
as  redy  to  your  pleasure  as  that.  And  ther- 
with  in  al  the  hast  he  sent  hys  servant  for  a 
messe  of  strawberies." 

Gloster  withdraws  from  the  Council  for 
about  an  hour  and  returns.  As  he  re-enters 
the  Council  with  Buckingham  the  following 
dialogue  takes  place  :  — 

"  Glos.  I  pray  you  all,  tell  me  what  they  deserve, 
That  do  conspire  my  death  with  devilish  plots 
Of  damned  witchcraft ;  and  that  have  prevail'd 
Upon  my  body  with  their  hellish  charms  ? 

Hast.  The  tender  love  I  bear  your  grace,  my  lord, 
Makes  me  most  forward  in  this  noble  presence 
To  doom  the  offenders  :  Whosoe'er  they  be, 
I  say,  my  lord,  they  have  deserved  death. 

Glos.  Then  be  your  eyes  the  witness  of  their  evil. 
Look  how  I  am  bewitch'd ;  behold  mine  arm 
Is  like  a  blasted  sapling,  wither'd  up  : 
And  this  is  Edward's  wife,  that  monstrous  witch, 
Consorted  with  that  harlot,  strumpet  Shore, 
That  by  their  witchcraft  thus  have  marked  me. 

Hast.  If  they  have  done  this  deed,  my  noble  lord,  — 

Glos.  If !  Thou  protector  of  this  damned  strumpet, 
Talk'st  thou  to  me  of  ifs  .''  —  Thou  art  a  traitor  :  — 


86  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

Off  with  his  head  :  —  now,  by  Saint  Paul  I  swear, 
I  will  not  dine  until  I  see  the  same.  — 
Level,  and  Catesby,  look,  that  it  be  done ; 
The  rest  that  love  me,  rise,  and  follow  me." 

The  original  version  of  this  incident  as 
given  by  More,  and  transcribed  into  the 
Chronicles  of  Hall  and  Holinshed  has  been 
very  closely  followed  by  Shakespeare,  as  will 
appear  by  the  following,  taken  from  IMore's 
'  Life  of  Richard  III. : '  — 

"  The  protectour  sette  the  lordes  fast  in  com- 
oning,  and  theriipon  praying  them  to  spare  hym 
for  a  little  while,  departed  thence.  And  sone 
after  one  hower  betwene  X.  and  XI.  he  returned 
into  the  chamber  among  them,  al  changed  with  a 
wonderful  soure  angrye  countenaunce,  knitting 
the  browes,  frowning  and  froting  and  knawing  on 
hys  lippes,  and  so  sat  him  downe,  in  hys  place  : 
al  the  lordes  much  dismaied  and  sore  merveil- 
ing  of  this  maner  of  sodain  chaunge,  and  what 
thing  should  him  aile.  Then  when  he  had 
sitten  still  a  while,  thus  he  began  :  What  were 
they  worthy  to  have,  that  compasse  and  ymagine 
the  distruccion  of  me,  being  so  nere  of  blood 
unto  the  king  and  protectour  of  his  riall  person 
and  his  realme.  At  this  question,  al  the  lordes 
sat  sore  astonied,  musyng  much  by  whome  thys 
question  should  be  ment,  of  which  every  man 
wyst  himselfe  clere.  Then  the  lord  chamberlen, 
as  he  that  for  the  love  betwene  them  thoughte 


HISTORICAL  BASIS  OF  'RICHARD  IIi:      87 

he  might  be  boldest  with  him,  aunswered  and 
sayd,  that  thei  wer  worthy  to  bee  punished  as 
heighnous  traitors  whatsoever  they  were.  And 
al  the  other  affirmed  the  same.  .  .  .  Then  said 
the  protectour :  ye  shal  al  se  in  what  wise  that 
sorceres  and  that  other  witch  of  her  coun- 
sel Shoris  wife  with  their  affynite,  have  by 
their  sorcery  and  witchcraft  wasted  my  body. 
And  therwith  he  plucked  up  hys  doublet  sieve 
to  his  elbow  upon  his  left  arme,  where  he 
shewed  a  werish  withered  arme  and  small, 
as  it  was  never  other.  And  therupon  every 
mannes  mind  sore  misgave  them,  well  per- 
ceiving that  this  matter  was  but  a  quarel.  .  .  . 
Netheles  the  lorde  Chamberlen  aunswered  and 
sayd:  certainly  my  lorde  if  they  have  so  hei- 
nously done,  thei  be  worthy  heinouse  punish- 
ment. What  quod  the  protectour  thou  servest 
me  I  wene  with  iffes  and  with  andes,  I  tel  the 
thei  have  so  done,  and  that  I  will  make  good 
on  thy  body  traitour.  And  therwith  as  in  a 
great  anger,  he  clapped  his  fist  upon  the  borde 
a  great  rappe.  At  which  token  given,  one  cried 
treason  without  the  chambre.  .  .  .  And  anon 
the  protectour  sayd  to  the  lorde  Hastings :  I 
arest  the  traitour.  What  me  my  Lorde  quod  he. 
Yea  the  traitour,  quod  the  protectour.  .  .  . 
Then  were  they  al  quickly  bestowed  in  divers 
chambres,  except  the  lorde  Chamberlen,  whom 
the  protectour  bade  spede  and  shryve  hym  a 
pace,  for  by  saynt  Poule  (quod  he)  I  wil  not  to 
dinner  til  I  se  thy  hed  of." 


SS  RICHARD    THE   THIRD. 

In  Act  III.  Scene  2,  the  following  dialogue 
occurs :  — 

''Hast.   Cannot    thy  master    sleep    these    tedious 
nights  ? 

Mess.    So  it  should  seem  by  that  I  have  to  say. 
First,  he  commends  him  to  your  noble  lordship. 

Hast.   And  then,  — 

Afess.   And  then  he  sends  you  word,  he  dreamt 
To-night  the  boar  had  rased  off  his  helm.'' 

In  the  fourth  scene  Hastings  is  made  to 
say :  — 

"  Woe,  woe,  for  England  !  not  a  whit  for  me ; 
For  I,  too  fond,  might  have  prevented  this : 
Stanley  did  dream,  the  boar  did  rase  his  helm; 
But  I  disdain'd  it,  and  did  scorn  to  fly. 
Three  times  to-day  my  foot-cloth  horse  did  stumble, 
And  startled,  when  he  look'd  upon  the  Tower, 
As  loath  to  bear  me  to  the  slaughter-house." 

More  and  Holinshed  are  Shakespeare's  au- 
thorities for  the  subject  matter  of  the  above- 
mentioned  incidents. 

More  writes  :  — 

"A  marveilouse  case  is  it  to  here,  either  the 
warnings  of  that  he  shoulde  have  voided,  or 
the  tokens  of  that  he  could  not  voide.  For 
the  self  night  next  before  his  death,  the  lord 
Stanley  sent  a  trustie  secret  messenger  unto 
him  at  midnight  in  al  the  hast,  requiring  hym  to 
rise  and  ryde  away  with  hym,  for  he  was  dis- 


HISTORICAL  BASIS  OP  'RICHARD  III:     89 

posed  utterly  no  longer  to  bide  :  he  had  so  fereful 
a  dreme,  in  which  him  thoughte  that  a  bore  with 
his  tuskes  so  raced  them  both  bi  the  heddes, 
that  the  blood  ranne  aboute  both  their  shoul- 
ders. And  forasmuch  as  the  protector  gave 
the  bore  for  his  cognisaunce,  this  dreme  made  so 
fereful  an  impression  in  his  hart,  that  he  was 
thoroughly  determined  no  longer  to  tary,  but 
had  his  horse  redy,  if  the  lord  Hastinges  wold 
go  with  him  to  ride  so  far  yet  the  same  night, 
that  thei  shold  be  out  of  danger  ere  dai  .  .  . 

"  Certain  it  is  also,  that  in  the  riding  toward 
the  tower,  the  same  morning  in  which  he  was  be- 
hedded,  his  horse  twise  or  thrise  stumbled  with 
him  almost  to  the  falling,  which  thing  albeit 
eche  man  wote  wel  daily  happeneth  to  them  to 
whom  no  such  mischaunce  is  toward  :  yet  hath 
it  ben  of  an  olde  rite  and  custome,  observed  as  a 
token  often  times  notably  foregoing  some  great 
misfortune." 

Holinshed  follows  More  word  for  word  in 
recording  the  above  incidents. 

Gloster  urges  Buckingham  to  appear  before 
the  people  to  shake  their  confidence  in  the 
legitimacy  of  Edward  and  Clarence  (Act  III. 
Scene  5) : — 

"  Glos.   Go,  after,  after,  cousin  Buckingham. 
The  mayor  towards  Guildhall  hies  him  in  all  post :  — 
There,  at  your  meetest  vantage  of  the  time, 
Infer  the  bastardy  of  Edward's  children : 


90  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

Buck.   Doubt  not  my  lord  ;  I  'II  play  the  orator, 
As  if  the  golden  fee,  for  which  I  plead, 
Were  for  myself  :  and  so,  my  lord,  adieu. 

Glos.   If  you  thrive  well,  bring  them  to  Baynard's 
castle  ; 
Where  you  shall  find  me  well  accompanied. 
With  reverend  fathers,  and  well-learned  bishops." 

They  meet  again  in  the  court  of  Baynard's 
castle  (Act  III,  Scene  7) :  — 

**  Glos.   How  now,  how  now  ?   What  say  the  citizens  ? 

Buck.    Now  by  the  holy  mother  of  our  Lord, 
The  citizens  are  mum,  say  not  a  word. 

Glos.    Touch'd  you  the  bastardy  of  Edward's  chil- 
dren ? 

Buck.  I  did ;  .  .  . 

I  bade  them  that  did  love  their  country's  good. 
Cry  —  God  save  Richard,  England's  royal  king  ! 

Glos.    And  did  they  so  ? 

Buck.   No,  so  God  help  me,  they  spake  not  a  word ; 
But,  like  dumb  statuas,  or  breathing  stones, 
Star'd  on  each  other,  and  look'd  deadly  pale. 
Which  when  I  saw,  I  reprehended  them ; 
And  ask'd  the  mayor,  what  meant  this  wilful  silence ; 
His  answer  was,  —  the  people  were  not  us'd 
To  be  spoke  to,  but  by  the  recorder. 
Then  he  was  urg'd  to  tell  my  tale  again  ;  — 
Thus  saith  the  duke,  thus  hath  the  duke  inferred ; 
But  nothing  spoke  in  warrant  from  himself. 
When  he  had  done,  some  followers  of  mine  own, 
At  lower  end  o'  the  hall,  hurl'd  up  their  caps, 
And  some  ten  voices  cried,  God  save  king  Richard  I 
And  thus  I  took  the  vantage  of  those  few,  — 


HISTORICAL  BASIS  OP  'RICHARD  III.'     91 

Thanks,  gentle  citizens,  and  friends,  quoth  I ; 
This  general  applause,  and  cheerful  shout 
Argues  your  wisdom,  and  your  love  to  Richard : 
And  even  here  brake  off,  and  came  away." 

Sir  Thomas  More  gives  in  full  Bucking- 
ham's oration,  which  was  historically  spoken 
for  the  very  purpose  indicated  by  Shakespeare 
in  the  drama.  More  has  also  left  on  record 
the  effect  of  the  oration  on  the  people  :  — 

"When  the  duke  had  saied,  and  looked  that 
the  people  whome  he  hoped  that  the  Mayor  had 
framed  before,  shoulde  after  this  proposicion 
made,  have  cried,  king  Richarde,  king  Rich- 
arde :  all  was  husht  and  mute,  and  not  one 
word  aunswered  thereunto.  .  .  .  And  by  and  by 
somewhat  louder,  he  rehersed  them  the  same 
matter  againe  in  other  order  and  other  wordes. 
.  .  .  But  were  it  for  wonder  or  feare,  or  that 
eche  looked  that  other  shoulde  speake  fyrste  : 
not  one  woorde  was  there  aunswered  of  all  the 
people  that  stode  before,  but  al  was  as  styl  as 
the  midnight,  .  .  .  when  the  Mayor  saw  thys 
he  wyth  other  pertners  of  that  counsayle,  drew 
aboute  the  duke  and  sayed  that  the  people  had 
not  ben  accustomed  there  to  be  spoken  unto 
but  by  the  recorder.  ...  At  these  wordes  the 
people  began  to  whisper  among  themselves 
secretly,  that  the  voyce  was  neyther  loude  nor 
distincke,  but  as  it  were  the  sounde  of  a  swarme 
of  bees,  tyl  at  the  last  in  the  nether  ende  of  the 


92  RICHARD    THE   THIRD. 

hal,  a  bushement  of  the  dukes  servants  and 
Nashefeldes  and  other  longing  to  the  protectour, 
with  some  prentises  and  laddes  that  thrust  into 
the  hal  amonge  the  prese,  began  sodainely  at 
mennes  backes  to  crye  owte  as  lowde  as  their 
throtes  would  gyve  :  king  Richarde  kinge  Rich- 
arde,  and  threwe  up  their  cappes  in  token  of  joye. 
And  they  that  stode  before,  cast  back  theyr 
heddes  mervaileling  thereof,  but  nothing  they 
sayd.  And  when  the  duke  and  the  Maier  saw 
thys  maner,  they  wysely  turned  it  to  theyr  pur- 
pose. And  said  it  was  a  goodly  cry  and  a  joyfull 
to  here,  every  man  with  one  voice  no  manne 
sayeng  nay." 

In  this  matter  Holinshed  transcribes  literally 
from  Sir  Thomas  More. 

When,  in  Act  IV.  Scene  2,  Richard  pro- 
poses to  Buckingham  to  make  way  with  Ed- 
ward, the  Duke  hesitates,  and  asks  for  time 
to  consider  the  matter.  This  angers  Richard, 
who  descended  from  his  throne,  gnawing  his 
lip  and  muttering  :  — 

"  K.  Rich.     I  will  converse  with  iron-witted  fools, 
And  unrespective  boys  ;  none  are  for  me, 
That  look  unto  me  with  considerate  eyes  ;  — 
High  reaching  Buckingham  grows  circumspect.  — 
Boy, 

Page.    My  lord. 

K.  Rich.   Know'st  thou  not  any  whom  corrupting 
gold 
Would  tempt  unto  a  close  exploit  of  death .'' 


HISTORICAL  BASIS  OF  'RICHARD  III.'     93 

Page.   I  know  a  discontented  gentleman, 
Whose  humble  means  match  not  his  haughty  mind  : 
Gold  were  as  good  as  twenty  orators. 
And  will,  no  doubt,  tempt  him  to  anything. 

K.  Rich.   What  is  his  name  ? 

Page.  His  name,  my  lord,  is  Tyrrel. 

K.  Rich.    I  partly  know  the    man  ;    Go,  call    him 
hither,  boy." 

The  page  brings  Tyrrel  into  the  presence 
of  Richard,  who  engages  him  to  make  way 
with 

"...  those  bastards  in  the  Tower." 

This  incident  is  based  upon,  but  is  a  slight 
modification  of,  the  historical  record  to  be 
found  in  Holinshed  and  More.  It  appears 
that  Richard  sent  one  John  Grene  with  a 
letter  to  Sir  Robert  Brakenburv,  constable 
of  the  Tower,  requesting  him  to  put  the 
princes  to  death.  Brakenbury  refused  to 
commit  the  murder.  Grene  returned  with 
the  refusal  to  Richard,  — 

"wherwith  he  toke  such  displeasure  and 
thought,  that  the  same  night,  he  said  unto  a 
secrete  page  of  his  :  Ah  whome  shall  a  man 
trust?  those  that  I  have  broughte  up  myself e, 
those  that  I  had  went  would  most  surely  serve 
me,  even  those  fayle  me,  and  at  my  commannde- 
mente  wyll  do  nothyng  for  me.  Sir  quod  his 
page  there  lyeth  one  on   your  paylet  without, 


94  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

that  I  dare  well  say  to  do  your  grace  pleasure, 
the  thyng  were  right  harde  that  he  wold  refuse, 
meaning  this  by  sir  James  Tyrell,  which  was 
a  man  of  right  goodlye  personage,  and  for 
natures  gyftes,  woorthy  to  have  served  a  muche 
better  prince,  if  he  had  well  served  god,  and 
by  grace  obtayned  as  muche  trouthe  and  good 
wil  as  he  had  strength  and  witte.  .  .  .  For  upon 
this  pages  wordes  king  Richard  arose,  and 
came  out  into  the  pailet  chamber,  on  which  he 
found  in  bed  sir  James  and  sir  Thomas  Tyrels, 
of  parson  like  and  brethren  of  blood,  but  noth- 
ing of  kin  in  condicion.  Then  said  the  king 
merely  to  them  :  What  ?  sirs,  be  ye  in  bed  so 
soone,  and  calling  up  syr  James,  brake  to  him 
secretely  his  mind  in  this  mischievous  matter. 
In  whiche  he  founde  him  nothing  strange,"  etc. 

In  Act  IV.  Scene  4,  Margaret    speaks    of 
Richard  as 

"  That  dog,  that  had  his  teeth  before  his  eyes, 
To  worry  lambs,  and  lap  their  gentle  blood." 

And  the  Duchess  of  York,  addressing  Rich- 
ard, says  :  — 

*'  A  grievous  burden  was  thy  birth  to  me." 

In  *  Henry  VI.'  the  King  addresses  Gloster 
with  the  reproachful  words  :  — 

"Thy  mother  felt  more  than  a  mother's  pain, 
And  yet  brought  forth  less  than  a  mother's  hope ; 


HISTORICAL  BASIS  OF  'RICHARD  III:     95 

Teeth  had'st  thou  in  thy  head,  when  thou  wast  born, 
To  signify,  —  thou  cam'st  to  bite  the  world." 

After  stabbing  the  King,  Gloster  solilo- 
quizes :  — 

"  Indeed,  't  is  true,  that  Henry  told  me  of; 

For  I  have  often  heard  my  mother  say, 
.  I  came  into  the  world  with  my  legs  forward ; 

The  midwife  wonder'd  ;  and  the  women  cried, 
O,  Jestis  bless  11  s,  he  is  born  tvith  teeth  !  " 

More  and  Holinshed  give  the  historical  ba- 
sis for  these  incidents  of  the  birth  of  Richard 
referred  to  in  Shakespeare's  drama  :  — 

"It  is  for  trouth  reported,  that  the  Duches 
his  mother  had  so  muche  a  doe  in  her  travaile, 
that  shea  coulde  not  bee  delivered  of  hym  un- 
cutte :  and  that  hee  came  into  the  worlde  with 
the  feete  forwarde,  as  menne  bee  borne  out- 
warde,  and  (as  the  fame  runneth)  also  not 
untothed." 

In  Act  IV.  Scene  4,  Richard  entreats 
Queen  Elizabeth  to  plead  his  suit  with  her 
daughter. 

"  K".  Rich.   Then  in  plain  terms  tell  her  my  loving 
tale. 
Q.  Eliz.   Plain  and  not  honest,  is  too  harsh  a  style. 
K,  Rich.   Your  reasons  are  too  shallow  and  too 
quick. 


96  RICHARD    THE   THIRD. 

Q.  Eliz.   O,  no,    my   reasons    are   too   deep   and 

dead ;  — 
Too  deep  and  dead,  poor  infants,  in  their  graves. 
K.  Rich.    Harp  not  on  that  string,  madam ;  that  is 

past. 
Q.  Eliz.   Harp  on  it  still  shall  I,  till  heart-strings 

break." 

As  the  figure  "  Harp  not  on  that  string  " 
occurs  in  More's  '  Life  of  Richard  III.,'  it  is 
reasonable  to  suppose,  though  it  had  long 
been  a  common  expression,  that  Shakespeare 
borrowed  it  from  More  or  from  Holinshed, 
though  he  uses  it  in  a  different  connection 
and  puts  it  into  the  mouth  of  a  different 
person. 

The  Lord  Cardinal  engages  in  a  discussion 
with  Queen  Elizabeth  on  the  use  and  abuse 
of  sanctuary,  in  which  Lord  Howard  joins. 
The  latter  by  an  indiscreet  remark  brings  a 
mild  rebuke  upon  himself.  Sir  Thomas  More 
writes  :  — 

"  The  Cardinall  made  a  countinance  to  the 
other  Lord,  that  he  should  harp  no  more  upon 
that  string." 

In  the  histories  these  words  are  spoken  in 
the  presence  of  Elizabeth,  but  are  addressed 
by  the  Cardinal  to  Lord  Howard ;  in  the 
drama  they  are   addressed   to    Elizabeth   by 


HISTORICAL  BASIS  OP  'RICHARD  III.'      97 

Richard.     It   is   very  probable   that    Shake- 
speare found  the  suggestion  in  the  history. 

On  the  eve  of  the  day  of  battle  Richard, 
having  made  arrangements  for  the  conflict, 
proceeds  to  his  tent  with,  — 

"  So,  I  am  satisfied.     Give  me  a  bowl  of  wine : 
I  have  not  that  alacrity  of  spirit, 
Nor  cheer  of  mind,  that  I  was  wont  to  have." 

This  corresponds  with  the  historical  record 
as  found  in  Holinshed  :  — 

"  His  heart  being  almost  damped,  he  prog- 
nosticated before  the  doubtfull  chance  of  the 
battell  to  come ;  not  using  the  alacritie  and 
mirth  of  mind  and  countenance  as  he  was  ac- 
customed to  doo  before  he  came  toward  the 
battell." 

The  ghost  scenes  and  the  troubled  dreams 
of  Richard  on  the  eve  of  battle,  so  vividly 
represented  by  the  masterly  pen  of  Shake- 
speare, were  not  purely  imaginary  and  created 
for  dramatic  effect ;  they  were  based  on  his- 
tory or  tradition,  and  belonged  to  the  life  and 
experience  of  Richard. 

No  less  than  eleven  ghosts  rise  to  predict 
disaster  for  Richard  in  the  approaching  battle  ; 
they  are  the  ghosts  of  his  murdered  victims, 

7 


98  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

and  their  appearance  fills  him  with  terror. 
As  they  vanish  he  starts  from  his  dream, 
with,  — 

*'  Give  me  another  horse,  —  bind  up  my  wounds,  — 
Have  mercy,  Jesu  !  —  Soft ;  I  did  but  dream. 

0  coward  conscience,  how  dost  thou  afflict  me  f 
The  h'ghts  burn  blue.  —  It  is  now  dead  midnight. 
Cold  fearful  drops  stand  on  my  trembling  flesh. 
What  do  I  fear  ?    Myself  ?  there 's  none  else  by : 
Richard  loves  Richard  ;  that  is,  I  am  I. 

Is  there  a  murderer  here  ?     No ;  —  Yes  ;  I  am  : 
Then  fly,  —  What,  from  myself  .''     Great   reason  : 

Why  ? 
Lest  I  revenge.     What?     Myself  on  myself  .>* 
Alack  !  I  love  myself.     Wherefore  ?  for  any  good, 
That  I  myself  have  done  unto  myself  ? 
O,  no  :  alas,  I  rather  hate  myself, 
For  hateful  deeds  committed  by  myself. 

1  am  a  villain  :  Yet  I  lie,  I  am  not. 

Fool,  of  thyself  speak  well :  —  Fool,  do  not  flatter. 
My  conscience  hath  a  thousand  several  tongues, 
And  every  tongue  brings  in  a  several  tale. 
And  every  tale  condemns  me  for  a  villain. 
Perjury,  perjury,  in  the  high'st  degree; 
Murder,  stern  murder,  in  the  dir'st  degree  ; 
All  several  sins,  all  us'd  in  each  degree, — 
Throng  to  the  bar,  crying  all,  —  Guilty  !  guilty! 
I  shall  despair.  — There  is  no  creature  loves  me ; 
And,  if  I  die,  no  soul  will  pity  me  ;  — 
Nay,  wherefore  should  they  ?  since  that  I  myself 
Find  in  myself  no  pity  to  myself. 
Methought,  the  souls  of  all  that  I  had  murder'd 
Came  to  my  tent :  and  every  one  did  threat 
To-morrow's  vengeance  on  the  head  of  Richard." 


HISTORICAL  BASIS  OP  'RICHARD  III:      99 

On  the  morning  of  the  fatal  day,  Ratcliff 
enters  Richard's  tent,  when  the  trembUng 
King  says  :  — 

"  O  Ratcliff,  I  have  dream'd  a  fearful  dream !  — 
What  thinkest  thou  ?  Will  our  friends  prove  all  true  ? 

Rat.   No  doubt,  my  lord. 

K.  Rich.  Ratcliff,  I  fear,  I  fear,  — 

Rat.  Nay,  good  my  lord,  be  not  afraid  of  shadows. 

K.  Rich.    By  the  apostle  Paul,  shadows  to-night 
Have  struck  more  terror  to  the  soul  of  Richard, 
Than  can  the  substance  of  ten  thousand  soldiers, 
Armed  in  proof,  and  led  by  shallow  Richmond." 

The  historical  basis  for  such  dramatic  rep- 
resentation as  the  above  may  be  found  in  the 
following  passages  from  More,  Grafton,  and 
Holinshed.     More  says  :  — 

"  I  have  heard  by  credible  report  of  such 
as  wer  secrete  with  his  chamberers,  that  after 
this  abbominable  deede  done,  he  never  hadde 
quiet  in  his  minde,  hee  never  thought  himself 
sure.  Where  he  went  abrode,  his  eyen  whirled 
about,  his  body  privily  fenced,  his  hand  ever  on 
his  dager,  his  countenance  and  maner  like  one 
alway  ready  to  strike  againe,  he  toke  ill  rest  a 
nightes,  lay  long  wakyng  and  musing,  sore  weried 
with  care  and  watch,  rather  slumbered  than  slept, 
troubled  wyth  feareful  dreames,  sodainly  somme 
tyme  sterte  up,  leape  out  of  his  bed  and  runne 
about  the  chamber,  so  was  his  restles  herte 
continually  tossed  and  tumbled  with  the  tedious 


100  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

impression  and   stormy    remembrance    of    his 
abominable  dede." 

Holinshed  moralizes  on  the  disturbed  con- 
dition of  Richard's  mind  :  — 

"  Than  the  which  there  can  be  no  greater 
torment.  For  a  giltie  conscience  inwardlie  ac- 
cusing and  bearing  witnesse  against  an  offendor, 
is  such  a  plague  and  punishment,  as  hell  itself 
(with  all  the  feends  therein)  can  not  affoord  one 
of  greater  horror  and  affliction." 

In  Grafton's  Chronicles  it  is  ^vritten  :  — 

"  In  the  meane  season,  Kyng  Richarde  .  .  . 
marched  to  a  place  meete  for  two  battayles  to 
encounter  by  a  Village  called  Bosworth,  not 
farre  from  Leycester,  and  there  he  pitched  hys 
fielde,  refreshed  hys  souldyours  and  toke  his 
rest.  The  fame  went  that  he  had  the  same 
night  a  dreadfull  and  a  terrible  dreame,  for  it 
seemed  to  him  beyng  a  sleepe  that  he  sawe 
dyvers  ymages  like  terrible  Devils  which  pulled 
and  haled  him,  not  suffering  him  to  take  any 
quiet  or  rest.  The  which  straunge  vision  not 
so  sodainly  strake  his  hart  with  a  sodaine  feare, 
but  it  stuffed  his  head  and  troubled  his  minde 
with  many  dreadfull  and  busie  imaginations. 
.  .  .  And  least  that  it  might  be  suspected  that 
he  was  abashed  for  feare  of  his  enemies,  and  for 
that  cause  looked  so  pitteously,  he  recyted  and 
declared  to  his  familiar  friends  in  the  morning 


HISTORICAL  BASIS  OP  'RICHARD  III:     lOI 

his  wonderful  vision  and  terrible  dreame.  But 
I  think  this  was  no  dreame,  but  a  punction  and 
prick  of  his  sinnefull  conscience,  for  the  con- 
science is  so  much  more  charged  and  aggravate 
as  the  offence  is  greater  and  more  heynous  in 
degree." 

Holinshed  adds  to  Grafton's  words  his  own 
morahzing :  — 

"  So  that  king  Richard,  by  this  reckoning, 
must  needs  have  a  woonderfull  troubled  mind, 
because  the  deeds  that  he  had  doone,  as  they 
were  heinous  and  unnaturall,  so  did  they  excite 
and  stirre  up  extraordinarie  motions  of  trouble 
and  vexations  in  his  conscience." 

Now,  if  the  Primrose  Criticism  would  laugh 
when  ghosts  rise  before  the  tent  of  Richard, 
let  it  laugh  at  Sir  Thomas  More,  Grafton,  Hol- 
inshed, tradition,  and  history ;  not  at  Shake- 
speare, who  merely  dramatized  the  incident. 

The  orations  of  Richard  and  Richmond 
on  the  field  of  battle  Shakespeare  has  con- 
densed from  Grafton's  and  Holinshed's 
Chronicles,  where  they  appear  in  full.  TJie 
dramatist  has  preserved  the  ideas  expressed, 
and,  in  many  cases,  the  language  and  figures 
used  by  the  historians.  So  closely  do  the 
speeches  of  Richard  and  Richmond,  as  they 
appear  in  Shakespeare,  follow  those  found  in 


I02  RICHARD    THE   THIRD. 

Holinshed,  that  they  would  be  considered 
plagiarisms  if  put  into  the  mouths  of  other 
persons. 

In  the  historic  oration  Richard  speaks  of 
the  "  beggarly  Britons "  and  "  faynt  harted 
Frenchmen "  who  come  against  them.  In 
the  play  he  calls  them 

"  A  sort  of  vagabonds,  rascals,  and  runaways, 
A  scum  of  Bretagnes  and  base  lackey  peasants  ; '' 

and  he  cries  :  — 

"  Let 's  whip  these  stragglers  o'er  the  seas  again  ; 
Lash  hence  these  over-weening  rags  of  France  ; 
These  famished  beggars  weary  of  their  lives." 

In  speaking  of  Richmond,  in  the  historic 
oration,  he  says  :  — 

"And  to  begin  with  the  erle  of  Richmond, 
capteine  of  this  rebellion,  he  is  a  Welsh  milke- 
sop,  a  man  of  small  courage,  and  of  lesse  ex- 
perience in  martiall  acts  and  feats  of  warre, 
brought  up  by  my  moothers  meanes  and  mine, 
like  a  captive  in  a  close  cage  in  the  court  of 
Franncis  duke  of  Britagne  ;  and  never  saw  ar- 
mie,"  etc.     (Holinshed.) 

In  the  dramatic  oration  Richard  says  :  — 

"And  who  doth  lead  them,  but  a  paltry  fellow, 
Long  kept  in  Bretagne  at  our  mother's  cost  ,-* 


HISTORICAL  BASIS  OF  'RICHARD  III:     103 

A  milk-sop,  one  that  never  in  his  life 
Felt  so  much  cold  as  overshoes  in  snow  ? " 

Richmond  says,  in  his  historic  oration  :  — 

"  I  doubt  not  but  God  wil  rather  aide  us  (ye 
and  fight  for  us).  .  .  .  Our  cause  is  so  just  that  no 
enterprise  can  be  of  more  vertue,  both  by  the 
lawes  divine  and  civile."     (Grafton.) 

In  the  play  he  says  :  — 

"  God,  and  our  good  cause,  fight  upon  our  side." 

Again,  the  Chronicles  put  these  words  into 
Richmond's  mouth :  — 

"  What  can  be  more  honest,  goodly,  or  godly 
quarrell  than  to  fight  against  a  Captayne,  being 
an  homicide,  and  a  murderer  of  his  owne  blood, 
and  progenie.'* 

"Who  will  spare  yonder  tirant,  Richard  Duke 
of  Glocester  untruly  calling  himself  king,  con- 
sidering that  he  hath  violated,  and  broken  both 
the  lawe  of  God  and  man,  what  vertue  is  in 
him,  wdiich  was  the  confusion  of  his  brother, 
and  murtherer  of  his  Nephewes  ? " 

In  the  play  Richmond  says  :  — 

"  For  what  is  he  they  follow?  truly,  gentlemen, 
A  bloody  tyrant,  and  a  homicide  ; 
One  rais'd  in  blood,  and  one  in  blood  establish'd ; 
One  that  made  means  to  come  by  what  he  hath, 


I04  RICHARD    THE   THIRD. 

And  slaughter'd  those  that  were  the  means  to  help 

him ; 
A  base  foul  stone,  made  precious  by  the  foil 
Of  England's  chair,  where  he  is  falsely  set ; 
One  that  hath  ever  been  God's  enemy :  "  etc. 

This  interesting  comparison  of  the  speeches 
of  the  play  with  the  speeches  of  the  chroni- 
cle might  be  followed  still  further ;  but  enough 
has  been  done  to  show  that  the  drama  does 
not  vary  from  history  in  the  substance  of  these 
battle  harangues. 

It  is  acknowledged  that  this  short  chapter 
cannot,  even  as  a  whole,  claim  to  be  an  ex- 
haustive comparison  of  the  play  of  '  Richard 
III.'  with  the  historical  authorities  on  which  it 
is  based.  There  are  many  other  incidents  in 
the  play  the  origin  of  which  might  easily  be 
traced  to  tradition  and  history ;  but  a  sufficient 
number  of  illustrations  have  been  produced  to 
indicate  beyond  all  question  the  true  sources 
of  the  subject  matter  of  '  Richard  III.' 

It  may  be  found  in  several  instances  that 
Shakespeare  has  written  nonsense,  for  which 
critics  hold  him  responsible,  when  the  non- 
sense is  the  result  of  the  historian's  mistakes 
or  weaknesses.  Historical  accuracy  is  one  of 
the  merits  of  this  tragedy  of  '  Richard  III.,' 
"wherein,"  says  Milton,  "the  Poet  us'd  not 


HISTORICAL  BASIS  OF  'RICHARD  III:     105 

much  Licence  in  departing  from  the  truth  of 
History,  which  delivers  him  a  deep  Dis- 
sembler, not  of  his  affections  only,  but  of 
Religion." 

The  Richard  of  Shakespeare  is  the  Richard 
of  History. 


PART    III. 
THE   HISTRIONIC   RICHARDS. 


"Suit  the  action  to  the  word,  the  word  to  the  action; 
with  this  special  observance,  that  you  o'erstep  not  the 
modesty  of  nature :  for  anything  so  overdone  is  from  the 
purpose  of  playing,  whose  end,  both  at  the  first,  and  now, 
was,  and  is,  to  hold,  as  'twere,  the  mirrour  up  to  nature: 
to  show  virtue  her  own  feature,  scorn  her  own  image,  and 
the  very  age  and  body  of  the  time,  his  form  and  pressure." 


THE    HISTRIONIC    RICHARDS. 


HE  stage  is  not  the  best  interpreter 
of  Shakespeare.  It  has  been  the 
most  efficient  corrupter  of  that  su- 
preme dramatist.  The  mutilations  of  the 
original  text,  the  interpolations  and  elimina- 
tions, which  have  rendered  it  almost  impossi- 
ble to  determine  what  Shakespeare  originally 
^vrote,  have  originated  in  the  theatre.  Very 
few  of  the  actors  of  the  English  stage  have 
been  scholars,  though  many  of  them  have 
ranked  with  men  of  highest  native  intellect- 
uality and  taste. 

Many  a  genius  has  been  able  to  catch  the 
spirit  of  Shakespeare's  characters,  and  to  pre- 
sent upon  the  stage  thrilling  and  captivating 
performances,  who  has  lacked  the  knowledge, 
learning,  critical  acumen,  and  literary  taste 
necessary  to  a  thorough  and  scientific  study 


no  RICHARD   THE   THIRD. 

of  Shakespeare  as  a  literature.  It  is  well 
known  that  Kemble,  Cooke,  Kean,  and 
J.  B.  Booth  made  some  of  their  most  telling 
"  points  "  by  glaring  misinterpretations  of 
Shakespeare's  thought.  It  has  not  infre- 
quently transpired  that  the  actor  has  given  to 
a  Shakespearian  character  an  interpretation 
which,  while  it  stamped  the  performance  with 
the  actor's  genius  or  eccentricity,  almost  de- 
stroyed its  Shakespearian  identity.  The  stu- 
dent and  scholar  of  to-day  owe  more  to 
Pope,  Theobald,  Hanmer,  Johnson,  Steevens, 
Malone,  Ulrici,  Goethe,  Gervinus,  Collier, 
Halliwell-Phillipps,  and  Richard  Grant  White, 
for  present  light  on  everything  that  is  Shake- 
spearian in  literature,  than  to  all  the  actors 
that  have  strutted  the  stage  from  the  days  of 
Burbage  to  the  age  of  Salvini,  Irving,  and 
Edwin  Booth.  Actors  have  not  enriched  the 
theme  by  any  valuable  restorations  to  the 
text,  any  wise  verbal  criticism,  any  antiqua- 
rian research  and  discovery,  any  etymological 
or  grammatical  elucidations,  any  historical  or 
classical  illustrations  of  importance.  For  all 
these  important  helps  to  the  study  and  com- 
prehension of  Shakespeare  we  are  indebted 
to  men  of  letters  and  of  the  academic  gown 
rather  than  to  men  of  the  sock  and  buskin. 


THE  HISTRIONIC  RICHARDS.  m 

It  is  nevertheless  interesting  to  consider 
the  merits  of  those  great  actors  who  by  com- 
mon consent  have  been  the  finest  interpreters 
of  Shakespeare  on  the  stage.  In  calling  to 
our  attention  the  greatest  Richards  of  the 
theatre  it  is  not  surprising  that  we  are  com- 
pelled to  summon  before  us  the  greatest  actors, 
the  most  conspicuous  histrionic  geniuses  that 
have  graced  the  English  stage.  No  mean 
actor  has  ever  been  able  to  worthily  represent 
Richard  III.,  which  fact  must  add  peculiar 
lustre  to  the  fame  of  its  author. 

The  first,  the  original  Richard,  was  a  friend 
and  a  fellow  actor  of  Shakespeare,  and 
doubtless  studied  the  great  character  in  the 
light  of  its  author's  instruction.  This  was 
Richard  Burbage,  "  England's  great  Roscius." 
He  was  born  in  1566,  two  years  after  the 
great  poet,  and  died  in  16 19,  surviving  his 
illustrious  friend  but  three  years.  The  name 
of  this  renowned  actor  appears  second  in  the 
list  of  Principal  Actors,  of  which  Shake- 
speare's is  first,  printed  in  the  first  folio  edi- 
tion of  the  poet's  works.  Reference  has 
already  been  made  to  the  Tooley  anecdote, 
in  which  both  Burbage  and  Shakespeare  as- 
sume the  name  of  Richard  III.  The  story 
would  indicate  that  Burbage  was  as  univer- 


112  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

sally  recognized  to  be  the  actor  of  the  charac- 
ter as  Shakespeare  was  to  be  the  author  of  it. 

In  a  play  performed  at  one  of  the  Uni- 
versities, while  Burbage  was  performing  this 
tragedy  and  making  fame  in  the  character  of 
Richard,  the  actor  is  represented  as  teaching 
an  apt  pupil  how  to  perform  the  part ;  which 
would  also  seem  to  intimate  that  he  was 
recognized  to  be  the  Richard  of  his  day,  and 
the  authority  on  the  subject  so  far  as  the 
theatrical  representation  of  the  character  was 
concerned.  In  the  literature  of  his  day, 
Burbage  is  perhaps  more  conspicuously  and 
eulogistically  identified  with  this  than  with  any 
other  character  which  he  assumed.  Bishop 
Corbet  represents  that  when  he  visited  Bos- 
worth  field  his  host  confounded  Burbage  with 
Richard  in  describing  the  battle,  showing  what 
a  profound  impression  the  actor  had  made 
in  this  character. 

"  Besides  what  of  his  knowledge  he  could  say, 
He  had  authentic  notice  from  the  play, 
Shown  chiefly  by  that  one  perspicuous  thing, 
That  he  mistook  a  player  for  a  King  ; 
For  when  he  should  have  said,  here  Richard  died 
And    Called  'a  horse,    a  horse'  —  he   Burbadge 
cried." 

Burbage  must  have  resembled  Garrick  in 
universality  and  versatility  of  genius,  as  he 


THE  HISTRIONIC  RICHARDS.         113 

assumed  all  the  most  important  Shakespearian 
characters  with  ability  and  success.  In  his 
death  the  theatrical,  if  not  the  literary  world 
mourned  the  disappearance  from  the  stage 
of  all  these  great  characters,  —  his  "  Young 
Hamlet,  though  but  Scant  of  breath,"  "  poor 
Romeo,"  "  Tyrant  Macbeth,  with  unwash'd 
bloody  hand,"  "  the  red-hair'd  Jew,"  "  the 
grieved  Moor,"  —  and  all  his  parts,  "From 
ancient  Leare  to  youthful  Pericles ;  "  but  it 
was  above  all  felt  by  that  age  that  in  Bur- 
bage's  death, 

"  The  Crookback,  as  befits,  shall  cease  to  live." 

In  stature,  Burbage  was  short  and  thick- 
set ;  his  features  were  wonderfully  expressive, 
as  the  lines  of  the  elegy  run  :  — 

"  Thy  stature  small,  but  every  thought  and  mood 
Might  thoroughly  from  thy  face  be  understood." 

His  every  action  was  truth  and  grace,  and 
his  voice  and  elocution  were  enchanting. 

"  How  did  his  speech  become  him,  and  his  pace 
Suit  with  his  speech,  and  every  action  grace 
Them  both  alike,  while  not  a  word  did  fall 
Without  just  weight  to  ballast  it  withal. 
Had'st  thou  but  spoke  with  Death,  and  us'd  the 

power 
Of  thy  enchanting  tongue  at  that  first  hour 
8 


114  RICHARD    THE   THIRD. 

Of  his  assault,  he  had  let  fall  his  dart 
And    quite    been    charm'd    with    thy    all-charming 
art." 

If  the  eulogies  may  be  accepted,  Burbage 
has  had  no  superior  on  the  stage,  not  even 
excepting  Garrick  Or  Kean.  What,  then, 
must  have  been  that  Richard,  whicli  was  his 
greatest  representation,  and  which  he  un- 
doubtedly studied  and  performed  with  Shake- 
speare's assistance?  No  reliable  traditions 
have  come  down  to  us  of  his  "  points  "  and 
peculiar  excellences  in  this  character.  His 
creation  —  for  he  was  beyond  dispute  the 
original  Richard  —  seems  to  have  perished 
with  him.  Crookback,  as  was  fit,  did  cease  to 
live.  A  hundred  years  passed  by  ere  another 
rose  to  assume  the  almost  forgotten  character. 
Across  those  years  no  definite,  intelligent 
ideas  of  Burbage 's  performance  had  come. 
The  great  Burbage  and  the  great  Richard, 
Uke  the  greater  Shakespeare,  passed  away 
without  leaving  to  the  historian  a  satisfying 
portion,  nor  even  to  the  curious  more  than  a 
few  dry  crumbs  of  tradition. 

Thomas  Betterton  was  doubtless  in  some 
of  his  characters  the  equal  if  not  the  superior 
of  Burbage.  Pepys  wrote  :  "  I  only  know 
that  Mr.  Betterton  is  the  best  actor  in  the 


THE  HISTRIONIC  RICHARDS.         115 

world,"  and  of  this  actor's  first  soliloquy  in 
*  Hamlet,'  he  exclaimed  :  "  It 's  the  best  acted 
part  ever  done  by  man."  Yet  Betterton  did 
not  make  any  fame  in  the  character  of  Rich- 
ard. His  corpulency  and  general  ungainly 
and  clumsy  proportions  unfitted  him  for  this 
character,  though  his  voice,  not  unlike  Kean's 
and  Cooke's  in  natural  gruffness,  might  have 
been  adapted  to  the  part.  The  greatest 
Hamlet,  however,  was  not  even  a  tolerable 
Richard.  Colley  Gibber,  who,  in  i  700,  muti- 
lated the  play  of  'Richard  HI.'  to  adapt  it 
to  the  stage,  attempted  the  leading  role,  but 
failed.  Barton  Booth,  so  distinguished  in 
Addison's  '  Cato,'  could  not  master  the  energy 
and  genius  to  produce 

"  That  excellent  grasd  tyrant  of  the  earth." 

Macklin,  — 

" the  Jew 

That  Shakespeare  drew," 

was  unequal  to  the  task  of  performing  a  great 
Richard. 

The  first  actor  to  pick  up  the  long-neglected 
mantle  of  Burbage  and  assume  with  originality 
and  success  the  character  of  Richard  IH., 
was  Lacy  Ryan,  who  began  to  attract  atten- 
tion about  the  year  1712.     This  now  almost 


Il6  RICHARD    THE   THIRD. 

forgotten  actor  was  doubtless  the  creator  of 
the  Richard  of  the  modern  stage.  To  him 
Garrick,  Cooke,  Kean,  and  Booth  were  in- 
debted for  many  of  their  *'  points."  Foote 
was  so  impressed  with  Ryan's  acting  in  this 
part  that  he  wrote  to  his  praise  :  — 

"  From  him  succeeding  Richards  took  the  cue, 
And  hence  his  style,  if  not  the  color,  drew." 

Fitzgerald,  the  biographer  of  Garrick,  ac- 
knowledges the  great  actor's  indebtedness 
to  Ryan,  and  Garrick  himself  attributed  the 
merits  of  his  own  representation  to  Ryan, 
whom  he  had  gone  to  ridicule  in  the  play 
of '  Richard  III.,'  but  came  away  to  admire, 
praise,  and  imitate. 

Ryan's  Richard  must  have  received  its 
excellences  from  his  mental  rather  than  from 
his  physical  advantages.  If  so,  the  greater 
the  virtue  and  more  just  the  praise.  While 
Ryan's  general  features  were  favorable,  his 
nose  had  been  broken  by  a  blow,  and  his 
cheeks  pierced  and  jaw  broken  by  a  bullet. 
The  result  of  these  injuries  was  an  irremedi- 
able defect  of  voice  and  elocution.  He  gave 
but  little  attention  to  his  "make  up,"  and 
often  appeared  in  a  part  with  slovenly  dress, 
which,  with  a  lack  of  natural  grace  and  his 


THE  HISTRIONIC  RICHARDS.  1 1  7 

absolute  ignorance  of  gesture,  detracted  from 
the  external  merits  of  his  representation.  In 
spite  of  these  disadvantages,  however,  he  made 
an  impression  in  the  character  of  Richard  III., 
which  has  come  down,  through  the  imitations 
of  the  greatest  actors,  to  the  present  time. 
Lacy  Ryan  must  have  possessed  an  uncom- 
mon genius  to  have  risen  above  all  his  phy- 
sical defects  into  a  character  which  is  in 
many  important  features  the  stage  Richard 
of  to-day. 

On  Oct.  19,  1 741,  David  Garrick  made  his 
debut  at  Goodman's  Fields  as  Richard  III. 
It  was  a  wise  choice  of  character,  though  one 
of  the  most  trying  parts  that  ever  actor  at- 
tempted. His  debut  was  not  only  a  success, 
but  his  performance  of  Richard  was  the  sen- 
sation of  the  day.  All  London  was  in  a  furor 
of  dramatic  excitement ;  and  the  elite  of  the 
city  thought  it  no  task  to  drive  out  to  Good- 
man's Fields  to  witness  the  great  Shake- 
spearian representation,  while  even  the  most 
distinguished  congratulated  themselves  on  their 
good  fortune  if  they  succeeded  in  reaching  the 
door  and  crowding  into  the  packed  and  over- 
flowing theatre.  Men  and  women  of  fashion 
and  of  letters  talked  of  nothing  else  but  the 
great  Garrick  and  his  wonderful  Richard.    The 


Il8  RICHARD    THE   THIRD. 

actor  at  once  rose  to  the  distinction  of  merit- 
ing and  receiving  the  criticism  of  Walpole, 
the  praise  of  Pope,  and  the  social  attentions 
of  Chesterfield.  It  was  in  the  character  of 
Richard  III.  that  Garrick  first  achieved  celeb- 
rity, and  in  this  character  he  increased  to  the 
end  the  unfading  laurels  of  his  histrionic  fame. 
The  morning  after  his  debut  in  *  Richard  III.' 
his  reception  was  acknowledged  by  the  press 
to  have  been  "  the  most  extraordinary  and 
great  that  was  ever  known  on  such  an  occa- 
sion." Macklin  declared  that  this  was  one 
of  the  characters  in  which  *'the  little  fellow" 
secured  his  own  immortality.  Mrs.  Elizabeth 
Montague  wrote  at  the  time  :  — 

"  On  Saturday,  I  intend  to  go  to  Goodman's 
Fields  to  see  Garrick  act  Richard  the  Third, 
that  I  may  get  one  cold  from  a  regard  to  sense, 
I  have  sacrificed  enough  to  folly,  in  catching 
colds  at  the  great  puppet-shows  in  town." 

When  Pope  went  to  hear  Garrick  he  carried 
with  him  a  strong  prejudice  for  Betterton's 
style,  which  was  dignified  but  stagy,  mouth- 
ing, and  declamatory,  while  Garrick's  style 
was  most  natural  both  in  action  and  in  elocu- 
tion. Pope  was  captured  at  once,  and,  to 
the  intense  satisfaction  of  the  actor,  applauded 


THE  HISTRIONIC  RICHARDS.         119 

with  the  applauding  house.  Garrick  seems 
to  have  been  as  deeply  moved  that  night  by 
the  presence  and  approbation  of  Pope  as 
Pope  was  by  the  acting  of  Garrick,  for  the 
actor  says  :  — 

"  When  I  was  told  that  Pope  was  in  the  house, 
I  instantly  felt  a  palpitation  at  my  heart,  a  tu- 
multuous, not  a  disagreeable  emotion  in  my 
mind.  I  was  then  in  the  prime  of  youth,  and 
in  the  zenith  of  my  theatrical  ambition.  It  gave 
me  a  peculiar  pleasure  that  Richard  was  my 
character  when  Pope  was  to  see  me  and  hear 
me.  As  I  opened  my  part  I  saw  our  little 
poetical  hero  dressed  in  black,  seated  in  a 
side  box  near  the  stage,  and  viewing  me  with 
a  serious  and  earnest  attention.  His  look  shot 
and  thrilled  like  lightning  through  my  frame, 
and  I  had  some  hesitation  in  proceeding  from 
anxiety  and  from  joy.  As  Richard  gradually 
blazed  forth  the  house  was  in  a  roar  of  applause, 
and  the  conspiring  hand  of  Pope  shadowed  me 
with  laurels." 

To  know  what  impression  Garrick  made 
on  Pope,  Hsten  to  his  enthusiastic  eulogy  :  — 

"That  young  man  never  had  his  equal  as  an 
actor,  and  he  will  never  have  a  rival." 

When  Garrick  acted  this  part  to  Peg  Wof- 
fington's  Lady  Anne  in  Dubhn,  in  1742,  the 


120  RICHARD    THE   THIRD. 

town  went  mad,  and  so  powerful  was  Garrick's 
acting  that  "  women  slirieked  at  Richard's 
death." 

Garrick  had  a  handsome  face,  capable  of 
marvellous  expression,  full  of  animation  and 
intelligence.  His  general  physical  propor- 
tions were  neither  great  nor  inferior,  but  were 
all  grace  and  nobleness.  His  voice  was  full, 
rich,  and  commanding,  and  capable  of  express- 
ing every  emotion  of  the  heart.  In  style  he 
was  himself  alone,  and  hence  the  founder  of 
a  new  school  of  acting.  He  was  natural,  ver- 
satile, and  intellectual.  No  quality  of  an  actor 
seemed  wanting  in  him,  with  the  possible  ex- 
ception of  stature.  He  was  qualified  in  body 
and  mind,  in  genius  and  art,  to  give  the  the- 
atrical world  such  a  Richard  as  it  had  not 
looked  upon  since  the  famous  days  of  Bur- 
bage.  Walpole  pronounced  it  "  as  perfect  as 
could  be." 

Dr.  Doran  has  given  us  as  fine  and  perhaps 
as  accurate  a  description  of  Garrick  in  the 
part  of  Richard  as  may  be  found :  — 

"  From  the  moment  the  new  actor  appeared 
they  saw  a  Richard  and  not  an  actor  of  that 
personage.  Of  the  audience  he  seemed  uncon- 
scious, so  thoroughly  did  he  identify  himself 
with  the  character.      He  surrendered  himself 


THE  HISTRIONIC  RICHARDS.         121 

to  all  its  requirements,  was  ready  for  every 
phase  of  passion,  every  change  of  humor,  and 
was  as  wonderful  in  quiet  sarcasm  as  he  was 
terrific  in  the  hurricane  of  the  battle  scenes. 
Above  all,  his  audiences  were  delighted  with 
his  'nature.'  Since  Betterton's  death,  actors 
had  fallen  into  a  rhythmical,  mechanical,  sing- 
song cadence.  Garrick  spoke  not  as  an  orator, 
but  as  King  Richard  himself  might  have  spoken. 
The  chuckling  exultation  of  "So  much  for 
Buckingham ! "  was  long  a  tradition  on  the 
stage.  His  'points '  occurred  in  rapid  succes- 
sion. The  rage  and  rapidity  with  which  he 
delivered 

*  Cold  friends  to  me  !     What  do  they  in  the  North, 
When   they  should  serve  their  sovereign  in  the 
West .? ' 

made  a  wonderful  impression  on  the  audience. 
Hogarth  has  shown  us  how  he  looked^  when 
starting  from  his  dream  ;  and  critics  tell  us  that 
his  cry  of  '  Give  me  another  horse  ! '  was  the 
cry  of  a  gallant  man ;  but  that  it  fell  into  one 
of  distress  as  he  said,  '  Bind  up  my  wounds,' 
while  the  '  Have  mercy.  Heaven,'  was  moaned 
on  bended  knee.  The  battle  scene  and  death 
excited  the  enthusiasm  of  an  audience  altogether 
unused  to  acting  like  this." 

Other  "points"  by  which  he  would  electrify 
an  audience  were,  his  hurling  away  the  Prayer 
Book  after  he  had,  with  the  bishops,  closed 


122  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

his  conference  with  the  mayor  and  citizens ; 
his  wild,  terrified  start  from  sleep  in  the  tent ; 
the  desperation  with  which  he  fought  in  the 
battle  scene  ;  the  terrible  exhibition  of  will 
and  determination  in  the  death  scene,  where 
his  hands  would  convulsively  clutch  the  sod 
and  his  fingers  dig  into  the  very  earth.  The 
impetuosity,  suddenness,  and  terrific  energy  of 
action  at  every  climax  of  tragic  interest  made 
the  entire  performance  one  of  the  most  re- 
markable in  the  history  of  the  stage. 

The  impression  which  Garrick  made  upon 
the  tragic  nature  of  Mrs.  Siddons  in  his  per- 
formance of  Richard  has  been  recorded  in  the 
'  Life  of  John  Taylor,'  and  is  valuable  in  pro- 
portion as  Mrs.  Siddons  was  a  judge  of  great 
tragedy.     Taylor  says  :  — 

"  Speaking  of  Garrick,  once  when  the  subject 
of  acting  was  introduced  in  company  with  Mrs. 
Siddons,  I  observed  so  long  a  time  had  passed 
since  she  saw  him  act,  that  perhaps  she  had 
forgotten  him;  on  M^iich  she  said  emphatically, 
it  was  impossible  to  forget  him.  Another  time 
I  told  her  that  Mr.  Sheridan  had  declared  Gar- 
rick's  Richard  to  be  very  fine,  but  did  not  think 
it  terrible  enough.  '  God  bless  me  ! '  said  she, 
'what  could  be  more  terrible?'  She  then  in- 
formed me,  that  when  she  was  rehearsing  the  part 
of  Lady  Anne  to  his  Richard^  he  desired  her, 


THE  HISTRIONIC  RICHARDS.         123 

as  he  drew  near  her  from  the  couch,  to  follow 
him  step  by  step,  for  otherwise  he  should  be 
obliged  to  turn  his  face  from  the  audience,  and 
he  acted  much  with  his  features.  Mrs.  Siddons 
promised  to  attend  to  his  desire,  but  assured 
me  there  was  such  an  expression  in  his  acting 
that  it  entirely  overcame  her,  and  she  was 
obliged  to  pause,  when  he  gave  her  such  a  look 
of  reprehension  as  she  never  could  recollect 
without  terror." 

If  he  owed  much  to  Ryan  for  the  merits  of 
his  Richard,  it  is  Garrick's  glory  that  all  sub- 
sequent representations  have  been  considered 
great  in  proportion  as  they  have  approximated 
the  marvellous  excellences  of  his  performance. 

During  Garrick's  supremacy  several  actors 
entered  the  field  to  rival  him  even  in  the 
character  of  Richard.  Aaron  Hill  in  1744 
wrote  to  his  friend  Mallet  that  he  had  heard 
Garrick  in  Macbeth  and  was  highly  pleased : 

"  He  is  natural,  impressed,  and  easy ;  has  a 
voice  articulate,  and  placid  :  his  gesture  never 
turbulent,  and  often  well  adapted;  is  untouched 
by  affectation.  His  peculiar  talent  lies  in  pen- 
sively preparatory  attitudes ;  whereby,  awaken- 
ing expectation  in  the  audience,  he  secures 
and  holds  fast  their  attention.  ...  I  intend 
to  see  him  quite  through  Richard^  —  where 
I  have  been  told,  he  is  thought  strongest.    I 


124  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

design  to  see,  too,  Mr.  Q'uin^  who  has,  they  say, 
gone  new  and  noble  lengths,  in  the  same  char- 
acter. And,  when  I  have  observed  them  both, 
you  shall  have  my  opinion,  very  frankly." 

Thus  Quin  was  considered  a  rival  of  Gar- 
rick  ;  but,  though  he  was  the  Falstaff  of  his 
day,  his  "new  and  noble  lengths"  in  the 
character  of  Richard  never  brought  him  into 
decent  comparison  with  Garrick. 

Two  very  respectable  Richards  appeared, 
however,  in  the  performances  of  Thomas  Sheri- 
dan and  Henry  Mossop.  Richard  III.  was 
Sheridan's  first  and  Mossop's  second  charac- 
ter. When  Sheridan  made  his  debut  in  Dub- 
lin as  Richard,  he  was  as  much  of  a  sensation 
in  the  Irish  capital  as  Garrick  had  been  in 
the  English  metropolis.  He  was  young  and 
handsome,  gifted  with  a  natural  grace,  a 
mellow  voice,  and  a  fine  intellect.  He  had 
the  genius  and  abiHty  successfully  to  rival 
Garrick  in  King  John,  which  actually  created 
jealousy  in  the  bosom  of  the  monarch  of  the 
stage.  Mossop  was  an  actor  of  intelligence 
and  college  training;  he  had  a  finely  pro- 
portioned body  of  medium  stature,  and  a 
voice  of  great  compass,  full,  rich,  and  melo- 
dious, well  adapted  to  tragedy.  He  rivalled 
Garrick  in  Othello,  as  Sheridan  did  in  King 


THE  HISTRIONIC  RICHARDS.  125 

John,  but  he  could  not  win  very  bright  laurels 
in  Richard  in  competition  with  the  "little 
fellow."  Mossop  and  Sheridan  were  rivals, 
and  public  sentiment  was  about  evenly  di- 
vided on  the  question  as  to  which  should 
stand  second  only  to  Gan-ick  in  the  character 
of  Richard.  Mossop's  performance  is  remem- 
bered more  for  its  eccentricities  than  its  real 
merits.  His  elocution  was  almost  ludicrously 
deliberate,  his  gestures  were  very  awkward, 
and  his  dress,  singular  to  relate,  was  white 
satin  puckered ! 

After  Garrick,  the  next  truly  great  Richard 
to  appear,  was  that  erratic  genius,  George 
Frederick  Cooke,  who  made  his  debut  at 
Covent  Garden  Theatre,  Oct.  31,  1800,  in 
the  tragedy  of  '  Richard  III.'  His  perform- 
ance immediately  established  his  reputation 
as  an  actor  of  the  first  rank.  The  stage  had 
seen  no  Richard  to  compare  with  Cooke's 
since  the  brilliant  days  of  Garrick,  and  even 
the  memory  of  that  great  actor's  powers  did 
not  cast  a  shadow  over  Cooke's  splendid 
representation.  Cooke  had  the  advantage  of 
having  seen  Garrick  in  this  his  most  cele- 
brated character;  and  it  held  him  in  good 
stead,  for  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he 
followed   Garrick  in   certain  "  points."     His 


126  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

acting  in  Richard  produced  a  sensation.     He 
wrote  of  the  reception  which  he  received  :  — 

"  Never  was  a  reception  so  flattering.  Never 
did  I  receive  more  encouraging,  indulgent  and 
warm  approbation  than  that  night,  both  through 
the  play  and  at  the  conclusion." 

His  first  play  in  America  was  'Richard  HI./' 
in  which  he  appeared  at  the  Park  Theatre, 
New  York,  Nov.  21,  18 10.  It  was  consid- 
ered the  greatest  performance  that  had  ever 
been  seen  on  the  American  stage.  Richard 
was  Cooke's  most  celebrated  character ;  he 
became  identified  with  it  in  the  pubhc  mind 
as  Betterton  did  with  Hamlet,  Macklin  with 
Shylock,  Henderson  with  Falstaff,  Barry  with 
Othello,  Kemble  with  Coriolanus,  and  ]\Ia- 
cready  with  Virginius.  As  Doran  said  of 
Garrick,  so  may  it  be  said  of  Cooke,  he  was 
Richard,  not  a  mere  actor  of  that  personage. 
In  his  interesting  "  Reminiscences,"  Henry 
Crabb  Robinson  in  speaking  of  Cooke  says  : 

"  We  were  so  lucky  as  to  see  him  in  Richard^ 
his  favorite  character.  Nature  has  assisted 
him  greatly  in  the  performance  of  this  part, 
his  features  being  strongly  marked  and  his  voice 
harsh.  I  felt  at  the  time  that  he  personated  the 
ferocious  tyrant  better  than  Kemble  could  have 
done." 


THE  HISTRIONIC  RICHARDS.  127 

Leigh  Hunt  declared  that  Cooke  was  for 
some  time  the  greatest  performer  of  Richard. 
This  opinion  was  held  for  a  time  by  Macready, 
who  said,  "  He  was  the  Richard  of  his  day." 
And  further,  Macready  says  :  — 

"  My  remembrance  of  George  Frederick 
Cooke,  whose  peculiarities  added  much  to  the 
effect  of  his  performance,  served  to  detract 
from  my  confidence  in  assuming  the  crooked 
back  tyrant.  Cooke's  varieties  of  tone  seemed 
limited  to  a  loud  harsh  croak  descending  to  the 
lowest  audible  murmur ;  but  there  was  such 
significance  in  each  inflection,  look,  and  ges- 
ture, and  such  impressive  earnestness  in  his 
whole  bearing,  that  he  compelled  your  attention 
and  interest." 

Again,  in  speaking  of  this  same  performance, 
Macready  says  :  — 

"  Cooke's  representation  of  the  part  I  have 
been  present  at  several  times,  and  it  lived  in 
my  memory  in  all  its  sturdy  vigor.  I  use  this 
expression  as  applicable  to  him  in  the  character 
which  Cibber's  clever  stagy  compilation  has 
given  to  an  English  audience  as  '  Richard  Plan- 
tagenet,'  in  place  of  Shakespeare's  creation  — 
the  earnest,  active,  versatile  spirit,  '  unpiger, 
iracundtis^  inexorabilis^  acer,''  who  makes  a 
business  of  his  ambition,  without  let  or  demur 
clearing  away  or  cutting  down  the  obstacles  to 


128  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

his  progress,  with  not  one  pause  of  compunc- 
tious hesitation.  There  was  a  solidity  of  de- 
portment and  manner,  and  at  the  same  time  a 
sort  of  unctuous  enjoyment  of  his  successful 
craft,  in  the  soliloquizing  stage  villainy  of 
Cooke,  which  gave  powerful  and  rich  effect  to 
the  sneers  and  overbearing  retorts  of  Gibber's 
hero,  and  certain  points  (as  the  peculiar  mode 
of  delivering  a  passage  is  technically  phrased) 
traditional  from  Garrick  were  made  with  con- 
summate skill,  significance  and  power." 

Leslie  pronounced  Cooke  "  the  best  Rich- 
ard since  Garrick ; "  and  C.  M.  Young 
"  considered  him  without  a  rival "  in  that 
character.  John  Howard  Payne  gives  us  his 
impressions  of  this  great  actor  as  he  first  ap- 
peared on  the  American  stage  in  the  tragedy 
of  '  Richard  III.  : '  — 

"  As  regards  Cooke,  I  w^as  at  the  first  per- 
formance of  Cooke  in  America.  He  made  a 
different  impression  upon  me  from  any  other 
actor  I  have  ever  seen ;  there  was  something 
so  exclusively  unique  and  original  in  his  dra- 
matic genius.  He  always  presented  himself  to 
me  in  the  light  of  a  discoverer,  one  wath  whom 
it  seemed  that  every  action  and  every  look 
emanated  entirely  from  himself;  one  who  ap- 
peared never  to  have  had  a  model,  and  wdio 
depended  entirely  upon  himself  for  everything 
he  did  in  the  character  he  represented.     Cooke 


THE  HISTRIONIC  RICHARDS. 


129 


reminds  me  of  no  one  but  himself,  and  I  have 
never  been  able  to  recognize  the  real  Richard 
in  any  other  actor  than  Cooke." 

This  opinion  has  great  force  when  it  is 
known  that  Payne  was  intimate  with  Kean, 
whom  many  considered  to  be  the  greatest 
Richard  that  had  ever  lived,  not  even  except- 
ing Garrick. 

Cooke  was,  as  Robinson  intimates,  remark- 
ably well  adapted  to  this  character  by  nature. 
He  possessed  a  manly  figure  of  medium  stat- 
ure, a  noble  and  intellectual  face,  with  a  high 
broad  forehead,  a  prominent  nose,  an  expres- 
sive mouth,  a  strong  chin,  and  splendid,  dark, 
fiery  eyes.  His  features,  however,  wore  a 
naturally  proud,  sarcastic,  and  even  sneer- 
ing expression.  His  arms  were  very  short, 
and  were  used  with  little  regard  to  the  rules 
of  graceful  gesture  ;  yet  this  very  natural  de- 
fect, added  to  the  awkwardness  of  his  gait 
and  motion,  made  his  performance  of  the 
crooked-back  Richard  all  the  more  impres- 
sive. He  had  two  voices  :  one  was  bitter, 
harsh,  croaking ;  and  the  other  mild,  smooth, 
and  persuasive.  In  his  playing  of  Richard 
he  would  make  rapid  transitions  from  one 
voice  to  the  other  with  singular  and  startling 
effect.    Leigh  Hunt  gives  us  one  of  the  se- 

9 


130  RICHARD    THE   THIRD. 

crets  of  Cooke's  power  in  Richard  when  he 
says  :  — 

"  Mr.  Cooke  is,  in  fact,  master  of  every  species 
of  hypocrisy.  He  is  great  in  the  most  impu- 
dent hypocrisy,  such  as  that  of  Sir  Pertinax 
MacSycophant  and  of  Richard  III." 

It  was  this  natural  sarcasm,  this  haughty, 
cynical  disposition,  that  enabled  Cooke  to 
play  the  first  three  acts  of  '  Richard  III."  with 
a  power  peculiar  to  himself.  Though  he  took 
his  cue  from  Garrick,  he  did  not  seem,  like 
that  great  actor,  to  have  made  his  most  telling 
points  in  the  tent  scene  and  in  the  battle 
scene.  It  was  in  those  scenes  which  called 
for  cunning,  hypocrisy,  and  villany,  that  he  ex- 
celled, —  not  in  the  scenes  of  greatest  energy 
of  action,  but  in  those  where  words  and  looks 
are  most  significant.  According  to  Dunlap, 
Cooke's  "  superiority  over  all  other  Richards  " 
was  acknowledged  to  be  "  in  the  dissimula- 
tion, the  crafty  hypocrisy,  and  the  bitter  sar- 
casm of  the  character."  It  has  been  claimed, 
however,  that  his  craftiness  and  villany  were 
too  apparent.  Instead  of  hiding  his  cunning 
and  hypocrisy  he  advertised  it  in  every  look 
and  gesture,  and  every  intonation  of  his  voice. 
His  acting  was  considered  strong  but  coarse, 


THE  HISTRIONIC  RICHARDS.  131 

forcible  but  almost  too  brutal.  And  yet  his  rep- 
resentation in  the  opinion  of  play-goers  must 
have  been  original,  thrilling,  superb.  When 
he  stepped  before  the  footlights  of  old  Park 
Theatre  for  the  first  time,  he  was  fifty-four 
years  old,  and  his  constitution  was  badly 
shattered  by  intemperance ;  yet,  says  Dunlap 
his  biographer,  "  his  appearance  was  pictu- 
resque and  proudly  noble,  his  head  elevated, 
his  step  firm,  his  eye  beaming  fire."  Cooke 
was  as  great  in  the  wooing  scene  with  Lady 
Anne  as  Garrick  was  in  the  tent  scene.  All 
the  arts  and  powers  of  sarcasm,  "  wheedling 
flattery,"  hypocritical  humility,  cunning  suavity, 
velvet-tongued  villany,  were  brought  into  play  ; 
and  such  a  piece  of  consummate  acting  had 
rarely  if  ever  before  been  seen.  One  of  the 
most  sensational  "  points  "  in  the  acting  of 
Cooke  and  Garrick  was  made  with  this  line 
which  Shakespeare  did  not  write,  but  which 
Gibber  interpolated  into  his  "  adaptation,"  — 

"  Off  with  his  head  — so  much  for  Buckingham." 

Cooke  was  original  and  sensational,  if  not 
correct,  in  pronouncing  these  words  very  de- 
liberately, as  he  stood  swaying  backward  and 
forward.  Other  actors,  including  Garrick, 
have   spoken   them  in   hot  haste,  and   have 


132  RICHARD    THE   THIRD. 

characterized  this  whole  part  of  the  messenger 
scene  with  rapidity  and  impetuosity  of  feeling 
rather  than  with  Cooke's  cool,  sardonic  delib- 
eration. No  actor  has  represented  in  the 
character  of  Richard  greater  villany  and  con- 
temptible hypocrisy  with  less  kingliness  and 
heroism  than  Cooke.  In  Garrick's  perform- 
ance one  of  the  most  striking  features  was, 
not  the  diabolical  plotting  and  planning  of 
murders,  the  cunning,  oily-tongued  flattery 
and  insinuation,  but  rather  the  courageous, 
desperate,  almost  heroic  fight  and  death  on 
Bosworth  field.  Cooke  could  not  leave  this 
same  impression ;  his  mean,  cunning,  devil- 
ish murderer  of  women  and  children,  his 
sneering,  flattering,  hypocritical  Richard,  could 
not  fight  gloriously.  He  who  was  so  incom- 
parably mean,  detestable,  fawning,  dog-like,  in 
the  presence  of  Lady  Anne  could  not  be  gal- 
lant and  manly  in  the  presence  of  Richmond. 
Cooke  could  not  act  the  heroic.  He  had  not 
the  heroic  element  in  his  own  nature.  And 
it  is  significantly  true  that  not  a  single  noble- 
souled,  large-hearted,  generous  man  has  been 
able  to  bring  to  the  stage  a  great  representa- 
tion of  Richard,  if  exception  be  made  of  Bur- 
bage,  whose  personal  character  is  too  slightly 
known  to  be  criticised.     It  may  be  claimed 


THE  HISTRIONIC  RICHARDS.         133 

that  Garrick  was  an  exception ;  but  it  will  be 
found  that  Garfick  was  one  of  the  most  envious, 
self-conceited,  and  mean-souled  actors  of  his 
day,  though  in  his  histrionic  supremacy  he 
could  have  afforded  to  be  most  generous  and 
great-hearted.  Cooke  was  proud,  overbearing, 
insolent,  cynical,  drunken,  and  misanthropic, 
possessed  of  a  genius  which  might  have  found 
expression  in  deeds  of  personal  villany  had  it 
not  found  an  outlet,  a  vent,  upon  the  stage  in 
the  character  of  Richard  III. 

John  Philip  Kemble  was  the  founder  of  a 
school  which  emphasized  the  dignified,  ornate, 
scholarly,  and  graceful  in  acting,  —  a  school 
to  which  have  belonged  such  artists,  if  not  ge- 
niuses, as  J.  P.  Kemble,  Charles  Kemble,  C. 
M.  Young,  W.  C.  Macready,  Thomas  Cooper, 
Lawrence  Barrett,  and  Henry  Irving. 

Kemble  and  Cooke  were  contemporaries 
and  jealous  rivals.  Their  methods,  however, 
were  dissimilar ;  and  as  a  consequence,  there 
were  characters  in  which  each  excelled  the 
other.  Kemble's  Coriolanus,  Hamlet,  and 
Macbeth  were  superior  to  Cooke's ;  but 
his  Richard,  like  his  Sir  Giles  Overreach, 
"came  not  within  a  hundred  miles  of  Cooke." 
Kemble  would  not  act  Richard  after  he  had 
seen  Cooke's  performance.    There  were,  how- 


134  RICHARD   THE   THIRD. 

ever,  excellences  in  Kemble's  representation 
that  would  have  made  it  popular  had  it  not 
been  for  the  greater  representation  of  his 
rival. 

Kemble  was  a  solid,  dignified,  and  graceful 
actor,  who  sought  to  produce  a  great  whole, 
an  evenly  balanced  and  harmonious  represen- 
tation. He  did  not  attempt  by  sudden  and 
unexpected  bursts  of  passion  to  gain  applause. 
He  would  not  sacrifice  the  symmetry  and 
dramatic  proportions  of  a  play  to  a  few  start- 
ling and  original  "  points."  If  he  did  not 
possess  Cooke's  genius,  he  was  admired  for 
a  sober  judgment,  a  refined  taste,  a  nobility 
of  mind,  and  a  general  culture  and  art  of 
manner  and  method  which  were  not  found 
in  Cooke.  Kemble  was  a  man  of  splendid 
physical  proportions,  his  bearing  was  manly 
and  dignified,  his  features  were  handsome 
and  noble,  every  movement  of  his  body  was 
grace  ;  but  he  lacked  voice  and  spirit.  Though 
every  representation  of  his  was  marked  by  sin- 
cerity,, taste,  and  careful  study,  yet  it  was  often 
cold,  hard,  and  unimpassioned.  Hence  he 
who  was  superb  in  Coriolanus  could  make 
no  very  profound  impression  in  Richard  HI. 
That  character,  however,  received  at  his  hands 
an  interpretation  which  was  very  satisfactory 


THE  HISTRIONIC    RICHARDS.         135 

to  some  critics.  Kemble  preceded  Cooke  in 
this  character,  and  was  embarrassed  by  the 
memory  of  Garrick,  as  he  was  the  first,  with 
the  unimportant  exception  of  Henderson,  to 
suffer  comparison  with  him.  Kemble's  rep- 
resentation possessed  the  merit  of  originality. 
Cooke  took  his  cue  from  Garrick;  had  he 
attempted  an  original  representation  he  might 
have  created  less  of  a  sensation.  The  physi- 
cal beauty  and  noble  proportions  of  Kemble 
were  out  of  harmony  with  the  deformity  of 
Richard,  and  as  Sir  Walter  Scott  remarks, 
"  from  the  noble  effect  of  his  countenance 
and  figure,  neither  could  he  seem  constitu- 
tionally villanous ;  he  could  never  look  the 
part  of  Richard,  and  it  seemed  a  jest  to  hear 
him,  whose  countenance  and  person  were  so 
eminently  fine,  descant  on  his  own  deformity." 
Kemble  was  not  endowed  with  that  bitter, 
misanthropic,  sneering  disposition,  which  held 
Cooke  and  Kean  in  good  stead  in  the  char- 
acter of  Richard.  He  lacked  also  the  energy, 
which  he  sacrificed  to  grace,  to  fill  the  whole 
stage  with  the  desperate,  vehement,  terrible 
action  of  the  usurper.  He  could  not,  or 
would  not,  rise  to  the  climaxes  of  "  dreadful 
energy "  which  characterized  Garrick's  per- 
formance, nor  work  up  to  the  "  frightful  pas- 


136  RICHARD    THE  THIRD. 

sion  "  of  a  Junius  Brutus  Booth.     He  lacked 
force,  intensity,  and  action. 

There  were,  notwithstanding  these  faults, 
certain  marked  and  valuable  characteristics 
in  Kemble's  representation  which  will  forever 
preserve  it  from  inferiority,  if  they  do  not 
elevate  it  above  mediocrity.  While  in  the 
acting  of  Garrick,  Cooke,  Kean,  and  Booth, 
the  villany  of  Richard  was  apparent  in  every 
gesture,  look,  and  intonation,  in  Kemble's 
artistic  representation  it  was  covered  up 
by  a  semblance  of  virtue  and  nobility. 
Kemble's  Richard  did  not  advertise  his  dia- 
bolism on  all  his  features,  nor  proclaim  it  in 
all  his  vocal  inflections.  This  dignified  actor 
used  to  argue,  as  Scott  says,  "  that  Richard 
III.,  being  of  high  descent  and  breeding, 
ought  not  to  be  vulgar  in  his  appearance,  or 
coarse  in  his  cruelty."  And  Scott  intimates 
that  Kemble  incorrectly  gave  to  Richard  not 
only  "a  tinge  of  aristocracy,"  but  represented 
him  to  be  "of  a  generous  and  chivalrous 
character  "  and  a  "  handsome  prince."  This 
representation  was  relieved  of  the  uninter- 
rupted darkness  and  terror  of  Cooke's  and 
Garrick's  performances.  Tliere  came  in  upon 
those  horrible  scenes  occasional  rays  of  light 
through  Kemble's  interpretation,  which  not  a 


THE  HISTRIONIC   RICHARDS.        137 

few  welcomed,  not  only  as  original,  but  as 
correct  and  artistic.  It  is  singular,  however, 
that  two  critics  of  abihty  can  study  a  per- 
formance of  this  character  and  disagree  as  to 
what  merits  it  lacks  or  possesses.  Charles 
Lamb  admired  certain  features  of  Kemble's 
Richard,  and  lamented  that  "  the  sportive  re- 
lief which  he  threw  into  the  darker  shades  of 
Richard  disappeared  with  him."  Lamb  saw 
the  "sportive  relief "  of  Kemble's  perform- 
ance. Henry  Crabb  Robinson  says,  in  speak- 
ing of  Cooke's  performance  :  "  I  felt  at  the 
time  that  he  personated  the  ferocious  tyrant 
better  than  Kemble  could  have  done.  There 
is  besides  a  sort  of  humor  in  his  acting  which 
appeared  very  appropriate,  and  which  I  think 
Kemble  could  not  have  given."  Robinson 
saw  "  a  sort  of  humor  "  in  Cooke's  Richard, 
but  could  not,  like  Lamb,  see  it  in  Kemble's. 
In  the  wooing  of  Lady  Anne,  Kemble  was 
weak,  as  he  was  in  the  closing  scenes  of  the 
tragedy ;  that  is  to  say,  his  faults  were  in 
scenes  which  demand  great  hypocrisy  and 
villany,  and  in  scenes  of  impetuosity  and 
rush  of  action.  He  excelled  in  the  solilo- 
quies of  the  play,  and  in  scenes  where 
there  is  a  demand  for  dignity  and  princely 
bearing. 


138  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

As  Cooke  and  Kemble  were  waning,  there 
flashed  upon  the  English  stage  the  light  of 
a  new  and  incomparable  genius,  —  Edmund 
Kean.  It  is  doubtful  whether  a  greater 
Richard  was  ever  seen.  No  traditions  of 
Burbage  or  Garrick  were  able  to  cast  his 
wonderful  performance  into  shade.  It  was 
perhaps  the  most  original,  and  in  all  its 
parts  the  most  wonderful,  representation  that 
had  appeared  since  the  days  of  Burbage  and 
Shakespeare. 

Cooke  followed  Garrick,  and  some  have 
charged  that  Kean  imitated  Cooke.  This 
last  charge  is  without  foundation  ;  for  greatly 
as  Kean  admired  the  genius  of  Cooke,  he 
once  told  John  Howard  Payne  that  he  had 
never  seen  that  actor  in  the  character  of 
Richard.  Kean's  performance  seems  to  have 
combined  the  excellences  of  both  Garrick 
and  Cooke.  Kean  and  Cooke  were  very  sim- 
ilar in  natural  disposition,  in  moral  make-up. 
They  were  both  haughty,  cynical,  egotistic, 
coarse,  intemperate,  and  uncontrollably  pas- 
sionate and  misanthropic.  They  were  sim- 
ilarly endowed  with  power  to  represent 
cunning,  villany,  hypocrisy,  and  brutal  cru- 
elty. Neither  of  these  actors  had  a  fine, 
melodious  voice  to  be  compared  with  a  Gar- 


THE  HISTRIONIC  RICHARDS.         139 

rick's  or  a  Young's.  Yet  their  voices  did 
not  lack  power,  but  possessed  the  quality, 
which  may  be  used  with  great  effect  in 
Richard,  of  transition  from  the  harsh,  croak- 
ing, and  bitter  to  the  smooth,  mellow,  and  in- 
sinuating tones.  Kean's  physical  quahfications 
were  inferior  in  many  respects  to  Cooke's, 
and  also  to  Kemble's  and  Garrick's.  He  was 
insignificant  in  stature ;  he  shuffled  in  his 
gait.  He  had  not  Cooke's  expanse  of  brow, 
strength  of  chin,  and  general  nobility  of 
feature.  Yet  he  had  a  wonderful  eye,  full, 
black,  and  intense ;  and  though  his  features 
were  not  cast  in  a  noble  mould,  they  pos- 
sessed marvellous  powers  of  expression,  so 
that  no  actor  could  look  Richard  more  per- 
fectly than  Kean.  To  this  power  to  look 
Richard  Kean  added  the  power  to  act  him ) 
herein  he  surpassed  Kemble.  Though  he 
was  fitted  for  the  part  in  natural  tempera- 
ment, Kean  possessed  less  natural  acrimony 
and  meanness  than  Cooke,  and  may  have 
fallen  behind  that  actor  in  those  scenes 
where  this  spirit  is  expressed ;  yet  he  had 
a  more  impetuous,  nervous,  magnetic  nature, 
which  enabled  him  to  excel  Cooke  in  energy 
and  terrific  force  of  action,  and  in  power 
to  electrify  an  audience  by  sudden  and  mag- 


140 


RICHARD   THE  THIRD. 


nificent  outbursts  of  passion.  Cooke's  genius 
was  more  limited  in  its  range  than  Kean's. 
While  the  former  is  remembered  more  for 
his  Richard  than  for  any  other  Shakespearian 
character  he  assumed,  Kean  is  remembered 
for  his  greatness  in  Shylock  and  Othello  as 
well  as  in  Richard.  The  general  verdict 
seenio  to  accord  to  Kean  the  superiority  even 
in  Richard.  Cooke,  no  doubt,  was  incom- 
parable in  certain  scenes ;  but,  taking  the 
whole  tragedy  into  consideration,  Kean's  was 
the  greater  Richard.  Cooke  was  not  known 
in  his  character  of  Richard  before  his  forty- 
fifth  year,  when  he  made  his  debut  at  Covent 
Garden  \  but  Kean's  performance  in  this  char- 
acter may  be  traced  back  to  his  boyhood.  He 
was  a  life-long  actor  of  the  part.  We  are 
indebted  to  C.  M.  Young  for  one  of  our  first 
ghmpses  of  Kean's  Richard.  The  boy,  with 
his  mother,  Nance  Carey,  was  strolling  about 
the  country  giving  exhibitions  of  his  histrionic 
precocity,  when  one  day  about  the  Christmas 
time  he  chanced  to  bring  up  at  the  door  of 
Thomas  Young's  hospitable  mansion,  and  was 
admitted  to  the  hall,  where  Charles  Young 
first  saw  him.  Evidently  the  elder  Young 
had  planned  a  little  entertainment  for  the  boy 
and  friends  who  had  rome  to  enjoy  one  of 


THE  HISTRIONIC  RICHARDS.         141 

his  delightful  dinners,  and  at  the  proper  time 
the  genial  host  "  ordered  the  butler  to  bring 
in  '  the  boy.'  " 

"  On  his  entry  he  was  taken  by  the  hand, 
patted  on  the  head,  and  requested  to  favor  the 
company  with  a  specimen  of  his  histrionic  abil- 
ity. With  a  self-possession  marvellous  in  one 
so  young  he  stood  forth,  knitted  his  brow, 
hunched  up  one  shoulder-blade,  and,  with  sar- 
donic grin  and  husky  voice,  spouted  forth 
Gloster's  opening  soliloquy  in  Richard  III. 
He  then  recited  selections  from  some  of  our 
minor  British  poets,  both  grave  and  gay;  danced 
a  hornpipe  ;  sang  songs,  both  comic  and  pa- 
thetic ;  and,  for  fully  an  hour,  displayed  such 
versatility,  as  to  elicit  vociferous  applause  from 
his  auditory,  and  substantial  evidence  of  its  sin- 
cerity by  a  shower  of  crown  pieces  and  shillings 
—  a  napkin  having  been  opened  and  spread 
upon  the  floor  for  their  reception.  The  accu- 
mulated treasures  having  been  poured  into  the 
gaping  pockets  of  the  lad's  trousers,  with  a  smile 
of  gratified  vanity  and  grateful  acknowledgment, 
he  withdrew,  .  .  .  and  left  the  house  rejoicing. 
The  door  was  no  sooner  closed  than  every  one 
present  desired  to  know  the  name  of  the  youthful 
prodigy  who  had  so  astonished  them.  The  host 
replied,  that  this  was  not  the  first  time  he  had 
had  him  to  amuse  his  friends  ;  that  he  knew 
nothing  of  the  lad's  history  or  antecedents  ;  but 
that  his  name  was  Edmund  Kean." 


142  RICHARD    THE   THIRD. 

Dr.  Young  spoke  a  good  word  for  tne  won- 
derful boy  whenever  opportunity  offered,  and 
recommended  him  to  Mrs.  Clarke,  who  finally 
met  him  with  the  kindly  question,  "  Are  you 
the  little  boy  who  can  act  so  well?  "  Edmund 
having  answered  with  a  polite  bow,  the  good 
lady  further  asked,  ''What  can  you  act?" 
Without  hesitation  he  answered,  "  Richard 
the  Third,  Speed  the  Plough,  Hamlet,  and 
Harlequin."  "  I  should  like  to  see  you  act," 
said  the  lady  in  admiration.  "  I,"  replied  he 
with  flushed  cheeks,  "  should  be  proud  to  act 
to  you."  Arrangements  were  made  for  an 
appearance.  The  boy  in  the  character  of 
Richard  astonished  his  auditors.  All  were 
enthusiastic  in  his  praise,  and  Mrs.  Clarke 
took  him  under  her  care  to  educate  him  for 
the  stage. 

Kean  had  done  his  rehearsing  or  practising 
in  the  character  of  Richard  in  a  garret  over  a 
London  bookstore.  At  the  early  age  of  four- 
teen he  was  on  the  stage.  When  engaged  at 
Drury  Lane  Theatre  in  children's  parts,  he 
attracted  the  attention  of  notable  actors  and 
actresses  by  his  spontaneous  outbursts  of 
tragic  declamation  in  the  green-room.  On 
one  occasion  Mrs.  Charles  Kemble  asked 
who  was  creating  the  disturbance,  when  some 


THE  HISTRIONIC  RICHARDS.  143 

one  replied  :  "  It  is  little  Carey  [Kean]  re- 
citing 'Richard  III.'  after  the  manner  of  Gar- 
rick  ;  go  and  see  him,  he  is  really  very  clever." 
When,  later  in  his  career,  Kean  acted  this 
part  in  the  provincial  towns  of  Ireland  and 
England,  he  met  with  little  success.  Though 
in  his  representation  there  was  rising  the 
greatest  Richard  of  the  modern  stage,  the 
play-goers  could  not  appreciate  it,  and  while 
they  were  delighted  with  his  ballads  and  jigs 
they  nodded  over  his  wonderful  performance 
of  ^Richard  III.'  He  was  hissed  on  one 
occasion  because  he  forgot  the  audience  in 
his  complete  absorption  in  the  part ;  and  for 
their  ignorant  boorish  manners,  Kean  stepped 
to  the  front  of  the  stage  and  shouted,  "  Un- 
mannered  dogs !  Stand  ye,  when  I  com- 
mand !  "  It  awed  the  "  unmannered  dogs  " 
to  silence. 

When  Kean  appeared  at  Drury  Lane  in 
18 14,  at  the  age  of  thirty-one,  the  manager 
requested  him  to  make  his  debut  in  *  Richard 
HI. ; '  but  the  actor  was  too  sensitive  about 
his  physical  inferiority,  and  shrank  from  ap- 
pearing in  a  part  which  would  place  him  at  a 
disadvantage  on  account  of  his  slight  stature. 
He  therefore  insisted  upon  appearing  as  Shy- 
lock,  in  which  he  achieved  unquestioned  sue- 


144  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

cess.  With  the  encouragement  of  this  triumph 
he  ventured  to  appear  in  the  character  of 
Richard.  He  had  almost  if  not  quite  wrested 
the  sceptre  from  Macklin  as  Shylock ;  in 
'  Richard  III.'  he  had  to  contend  against  the 
splendid  traditions  of  Garrick  and  Cooke. 
He  succeeded  at  least  in  sharing,  if  not  in  fully 
capturing,  their  laurels.  His  Richard  at  Drury 
Lane  in  1815  was  as  great  a  hit  as  Garrick's 
at  Goodman's  Fields  in  1741.  As  it  was  with 
that  famous  actor,  so  was  it  with  Kean,  "  the 
town  became  his  own." 

Pope  eulogized  Garrick,  and  Byron  went 
wild  over  Kean.  The  prophecy  of  Beverley, 
the  Cheltenham  manager,  was  fulfilled  in  about 
two  years  after  it  was  generously  uttered. 
Oxberry  tells  us  that  when  the  loafers  who 
hissed  Kean's  Richard  from  the  Cheltenham 
stage  blamed  Beverley  for  "  suffering  such  a 
creature  to  do  Richard,"  the  wary  manager 
replied :  "  That  creature  in  a  few  years  will 
be  the  greatest  creature  in  the  metropolis,  and 
you  will  go  far  and  near  to  get  a  glimpse 
of  him."  On  the  night  of  Feb.  12,  18 15, 
Edmund  Kean  as  '  Richard  IH.'  was  "  the 
greatest  creature  in  the  metropolis ;  "  nay, 
the  greatest  creature  in  the  histrionic  world. 
That  first  performance  has  been  well  described 


THE  HISTRIONIC  RICHARDS.         145 

by  H.  B.  Baker,  in  his  interesting  work  on 
"  Our  Old  Actors  :  "  — 

"  He  approached  the  part  with  fear  and  trem- 
bhng.  '  I  am  so  frightened,'  he  said  before  the 
curtain  rose,  '  that  my  acting  will  be  almost  dumb 
show  to-night.'  But  nevertheless,  from  the  first 
soliloquy  to  the  appalling  last  scene,  he  took  both 
audience  and  critics  by  storm.  The  performance 
must  have  been  wonderfully  like  Garrick's.  .  .  . 
Mrs.  Garrick,  who  went  to  see  him  play  it,  told 
Dibdin  that  Cooke  put  her  in  mind  of  her  hus- 
band, but  Kean  was  like  Garrick  himself." 

Dr.  Doran  has  given  us  a  striking  sketch 
of  Kean's  triumph  on  that  memorable 
occasion :  — 

"  A  few  nights  before  he  played  the  part,  it 
was  performed  at  Covent  Garden,  by  John 
Kemble  ;  and  a  short  time  after  Kean  had 
triumphed  it  was  personated  by  Young;  but 
Kemble  could  not  prevent,  nor  Young  impede, 
the  triumph  of  the  new  actor,  who  now  made 
Richard  his  own,  as  he  had  previously  done 
with  Shylock. 

"His  Richard  (on  the  12th  of  February)  set- 
tled his  position  with  the  critics ;  and  the  criti- 
cism to  which  he  was  subjected  was,  for  the 
most  part,  admirably  and  impartially  written. 
He  is  sometimes  spoken  of  as  '  this  young 
man  ;  '     at    others,    '  this    young    gentleman.' 

10 


146  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

*  Even  Cooke's  performance,'  says  one,  *  was 
left  at  an  immeasurable  distance.'  A  second 
adds,  'it  was  the  most  perfect  performance  of 
any  that  has  been  witnessed  since  the  days  of 
Garrick.'  Of  the  grand  effects  followed  by  a 
storm  of  applause,  a  third  writes  that  '  electri- 
city itself  was  never  more  instantaneous  in  its 
operation.' " 

Lord  Byron  was  more  enthusiastic  over 
Kean's  performance  than  Pope  over  Gar- 
rick's.  He  went  to  his  room  and  wrote  in 
his  diary :  — 

"Just  returned  from  seeing  Kean  in  Richard. 
By  Jove,  he  is  a  soul !  Life,  nature,  truth,  with- 
out exaggeration  or  diminution.  Kembld's  Ham- 
let is  perfect,  but  Hamlet  is  not  Nature.  Richard 
is  a  man ;  and  Kean  is  Richard."' 

Kean's  "  points "  in  this  representation 
were  numerous.  Oxberry's  criticism  fur- 
nishes us  with  one  of  them  :  — 

"  In  his  opening  soliloquy  of  Richard,  which 
has  been  pronounced  to  be  unequalled,  he  com- 
mits a  glaring  error,  by  pausing  after  the  words 
'  And  my  first  step  shall  be,'  —  as  if  Richard 
had  not  previously  determined  that  it  should  be, 
—  'on  Henry's  head.'  " 

This  "  point "  was  made  with  one  of  Gibber's 
interpolations. 


THE  HISTRIONIC  RICHARDS.  147 

In  the  wooing  scene  with  Lady  Anne,  his 
acting  was  considered  most  original  and  artis- 
tic, though  his  hypocrisy  and  scorn  have  been 
criticised  as  too  apparent  and  too  coarse. 
Henry  Crabb  Robinson  has  given  us  his  im- 
pressions of  Kean's  great  performance  :  — 

"  He  played  Richard.,  I  believe,  better  than 
any  man  I  ever  saw ;  yet  my  expectations  were 
pitched  too  high,  and  I  had  not  the  pleasure  I 
expected.  The  expression  of  malignant  joy  is 
the  one  in  which  he  surpasses  all  men  I  have 
ever  seen.  And  his  most  flagrant  defect  is  want 
of  dignity.  His  face  is  finely  expressive,  though 
his  mouth  is  not  handsome,  and  he  projects  his 
lower  lip  ungracefully ;  yet  it  is  finely  suited  to 
Richard.  He  gratified  my  eye  more  than  my 
ear.  .  .  .  His  declamation  is  very  unpleasant,  but 
my  ear  may  in  time  be  reconciled  to  it,  as  the 
palate  is  to  new  cheese  and  tea.  It  often  re- 
minds me  of  Blanchard's.  His  speech  is  not 
fluent,  and  his  words  and  syllables  are  too  dis- 
tinctly separated.  His  finest  scene  was  with 
Lady  Anne,  and  his  mode  of  lifting  up  her  veil 
to  watch  her  countenance  was  exquisite.  The 
concluding  scene  was  unequal  to  my  expecta- 
tion, though  the  fencing  was  elegant,  and  his 
sudden  death  fall  was  shockingly  real." 

Kean   made  a  fine  ^'  point  "   out   of  the 
lines,  — 


148  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

"He  did  corrupt  frail  nature  with  a  bribe, 
To  shrink  my  arm  up  like  a  wither'd  shrub." 

He  would  look  for  some  time  with  contempt 
at  the  puny  arm,  and  then  slap  it  in  anger  and 
mortification  out  of  his  sight.  It  will  be  no- 
ticed that  the  lines  with  which  Kean  made 
this  fine  and  startling  point  do  not  belong  to 
Shakespeare's  play  of '  Richard  HI./  but  are 
Colley  Gibber's  interpolation  from  *  Henry 
VI.'  We  are  again  indebted  to  Doran  for  a 
fine  enumeration  of  Kean's  "  points  "  in  this 
representation :  — 

"Joyous  and  sarcastic  in  the  opening  solilo- 
quy; devilish,  as  he  passed  his  bright  sword 
through  the  still  breathing  body  of  Lancaster ; 
audaciously  hypocritical,  and  almost  too  exult- 
ing, in  the  wooing  of  Lady  Anne ;  cruelly  kind 
to  the  young  Princes,  his  eye  smiling  while  his 
foot  seemed  restless  to  crush  the  two  spiders 
that  so  vexed  his  heart ;  —  in  representing  all  this 
there  was  an  originality  and  a  nature  which  were 
entirely  new  to  the  delighted  audience.  Then 
they  seemed  to  behold  altogether  a  new  man  re- 
vealed to  them,  in  the  first  words  uttered  by  him 
from  the  throne,  —  *  Stand  all  apart ! '  from  which 
period  to  the  last  struggle  with  Richmond,  there 
was  an  uninterrupted  succession  of  beauties  ; 
even  in  the  by-play  he  found  means  to  extort 
applause,  and  a  graceful  attitude,  an  almost 
silent  chuckle,  a  significant  glance,  —  even  so 


THE  HISTRIONIC  RICHARDS.         149 

common-place  a  phrase  as  'good  night,  my 
lords,'  uttered  before  the  battle  of  the  morrow, 
were  responded  to  by  acclamations  such  as  are 
awarded  to  none  but  the  great  masters  of  the 
art." 

Macready  was  particularly  impressed  with 
Kean's  wooing  of  Lady  Anne,  his  interview 
with  Buckingham  when  he  proposed  the  mur- 
der of  the  two  young  Princes,  and  with 
the  terrible  energy  with  which  he  hurried 
every  plan  to  execution.  While  he  admired 
Cooke  in  certain  parts  more  than  Kean,  he 
gave  to  the  latter  higher  praise  for  his  repre- 
sentation as  a  whole.  It  was  Macready's 
opinion  that  Kean  never  displayed  more 
masterly  elocution  than  in  the  third  act  of 
^Richard  III.' 

Hazlitt  was  an  enthusiastic  admirer  of 
Kean  in  the  character  of  Richard,  declaring 
that  "  we  cannot  imagine  any  character  rep- 
resented with  greater  distinctness  and  preci- 
sion, more  perfectly  articulated  in  every 
part."  This  able  critic  notes,  among  others, 
the  following  ''  points  :  "  — 

"  He  is  more  refined  than  Cooke,  more  bold, 
varied,  and  original  than  Kemble  in  the  same 
character.  .  .  .  The  courtship  scene  with  Lady 
Anne  is  an  admirable  exhibition  of  smooth  and 


150  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

smiling  villainy.  .  .  .  Mr.  Kean's  attitude  in  lean- 
ins:  against  the  side  of  the  stage  before  he  comes 
forward  to  address  Lady  Anne,  is  one  of  the 
most  graceful  and  striking  ever  witnessed  on 
the  stage.  It  would  do  for  Titian  to  paint.  .  .  . 
His  by-play  is  excellent.  His  manner  of  bid- 
ding his  friends  '  Good  night,'  after  pausing  w'ith 
the  point  of  his  sword,  drawn  slowly  backward 
and  forward  on  the  ground,  as  if  considering  the 
plan  of  the  battle  next  day,  is  a  particularly  happy 
and  natural  thought.  He  gives  to  the  two  last 
acts  of  the  play  the  greatest  animation  and  effect. 
He  fills  every  part  of  the  stage.  .  .  .  The  con- 
cluding scene  in  which  he  is  killed  by  Richmond 
is  the  most  brilliant  of  the  whole.  He  fights 
at  last  like  one  drunk  with  wounds  ;  and  the 
attitude  in  which  he  stands  with  his  hands 
stretched  out,  after  his  sword  is  wrested  from 
him,  has  a  preternatural  and  terrific  grandeur, 
as  if  his  will  could  not  be  disarmed,  and  the  very 
phantoms  of  his  despair  had  power  to  kill." 

Sir  Walter  Scott  gives  us  a  glimpse  of  one 
of  Kean's  '^  points  "  in  acting  when  he  refers 
to  "  the  drunken  and  dizzy  fury  with  which 
Richard,  as  personated  by  Kean,  continues  to 
make  the  motion  of  striking  after  he  has  lost 
his  weapon." 

To  refer  again  to  the  ever-enjoyable  Doran, 
we  find  this  picture  of  the  closing  scene,  made 
the  more  interesting  by  anecdote  :  — 


THE  HISTRIONIC  RICHARDS.         151 

"  The  triumph  was  cumulative,  and  it  was 
crowned  by  the  tent  scene,  the  battle,  and  the 
death.  Probably  no  actor  ever  even  approached 
Kean  in  the  two  last  incidents.  He  fenced  with 
consummate  grace  and  skill,  and  fought  with  an 
energy  that  seemed  a  fierce  reality.  Rae  had 
sneered  at  the  '  little  man,'  but  Rae  now  felt 
bound  to  be  civil  to  the  great  tragedian,  and  re- 
ferring to  the  passage  of  arms  in  'Richard  III.,' 
he,  having  to  play  Richmond,  asked,  '  Where 
shall  I  hit  you,  sir,  to-night  ? '  '  Where  you  can, 
sir,'  answered  Kean ;  and  he  kept  Richmond 
off,  in  that  famous  struggle,  till  Rae's  sword- 
arm  was  weary  with  making  passes.  His  at- 
tempt to  '  collar '  Richmond  when  his  own 
sword  had  fallen  from  him  was  so  doubtful  in 
taste  that  he  subsequently  abandoned  it;  but 
in  the  faint,  yet  deadly-meant  passes,  which  he 
made  with  his  swordless  arm,  after  he  had  re- 
ceived his  death-blow,  there  was  the  conception 
of  a  great  artist;  and  there  died  with  him  a  ma- 
lignity which  mortal  man  had  never  before  so 
terribly  portrayed." 

One  feature  of  this  last  scene,  of  great 
force  and  interest,  Talfourd  refers  to  in  his 
criticism :  — 

"  His  last  look  at  Richmond  as  he  stands  is 
fearful;  as  if  the  agony  of  death  gave  him 
power  to  menace  his  conqueror  with  the  ghostly 
terrors  of  the  world  into  which  the  murderous 
tyrant  is  entering." 


152  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

Kean  made  his  first  appearance  in  America 
on  the  8th  of  January,  182 1  ;  he  made  his 
debut  in  '  Richard  III.,'  as  Cooke  had  done 
about  ten  years  previously.  The  Philadelphia 
theatre  was  crowded  to  excess,  and  he  was 
received  with  the  most  rapturous  applause,  as 
was  the  case  with  Cooke  at  the  New  York 
theatre  in  18 10.  It  is  doubtful  whether  Kean 
succeeded  in  wresting  the  sceptre  from  Cooke, 
who  had  made  a  wonderful  fame  in  x^merica. 
The  '  Democratic  Press  '  voiced  the  universal 
verdict  as  to  the  greatness  of  Kean  in  the  last 
scene  of  '  Richard  III.  : '  — 

"So  much  had  been  said  of  the  dying  scenes 
of  Mr.  Kean,  that  curiosity  was  at  its  topitiost 
ro2md  when  the  fight  began,  which  was  to  issue 
in  his  death.  All  that  we  had  heard,  —  all  that 
we  could  ever  hear,  on  this  head,  must  neces- 
sarily fall  infinitely  short  of  the  extraordinary 
powers  displayed  by  Mr.  Kean  in  the  last  scene. 
He  writhed  with  bodily  pain;  he  ao^onized under 
the  terrors  of  conscience  ;  he  gasped  for  breath  ; 
his  every  motion  evinced  distress,  and  approach- 
ing death,  his  sufferings  were  so  painful  to  the 
beholder,  that  he  felt  relieved  when  nature  was 
exhausted  and  Richard  had  expired." 

One  or  two  very  good  anecdotes  are  re- 
lated of  Kean  in  connection  with  his  cele- 


THE  HISTRIONIC  RICHARDS.         153 

brated  and  incomparable  representation  of 
Richard  III.,  showing  that  the  admiration  of 
some  was  not  founded  on  an  independent 
judgment  or  study  of  his  characterization,  and 
also  showing  that  all  persons  did  not  look 
upon  him  as  the  greatest  Richard.  On  the 
authority  of  F.  Reynolds,  a  rising  and  self- 
conscious  barrister  on  one  occasion,  in  com- 
pany with  quite  a  number  of  political  and 
literary  notables,  took  occasion  to  compli- 
ment Kean  by  saying  — 

"  that  he  had  never  seen  acting  until  the  pre- 
ceding evening.  'Indeed!'  said  Kean;  'why 
you  must  have  seen  others,  sir,  I  should  con- 
ceive, in  Richard  III.''  '  I  have  seen,'  replied 
the  barrister,  'both  Cooke  and  Kemble ;  but 
they  must  excuse  me,  Mr.  Kean,  if  I  should 
turn  from  them,  and  frankly  say  to  you,  with 
Hamlet^  "  Here  's  metal  more  attractive." ' 
Kean  felt  highly  flattered.  The  conversation 
then  turning  on  a  curious  lawsuit,  Kean,  after 
a  pause,  asked  the  barrister  if  he  had  ever  vis- 
ited the  Exeter  Theatre.  'Very  rarely  indeed,' 
was  the  reply,  'though,  by  the  by,  now  I  recol- 
lect, during  the  last  assizes,  I  dropped  in  to- 
wards the  conclusion  of  Richard  III.  RicJunond 
was  in  the  hands  of  a  very  promising  young 
fellow;  but  such  a  Richard!  —  such  a  harsh, 
croaking,  barn  brawler  !  I  forget  his  name,  but ' 
— '  I  '11  tell  it  you,'  interrupted  the  Drury  Lane 


154  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

hero,  rising  and  tapping  the  great  lawyer  on  the 
shoulder :  '  I  '11  tell  it  you  —  Keati. 


» 11 


*  Blackwood's  Magazine  '  is  responsible  for 
the  following  story  :  — 

"  During  one  of  Charles  Kean's  visits  to  the 
United  States,  he  was  entertained  at  dinner  by 
one  of  the  great  New  York  merchants.  Oppo- 
site to  him  at  the  table  there  sat  a  gentleman, 
who  continued  to  observe  him  with  marked  at 
tention,  and  at  last  called  on  the  host  to  present 
him  to  Mr.  Kean.  The  introduction  was  duly 
made,  and  ratified  by  drinking  wine  together; 
when  the  stranger,  with  much  impressiveness 
of  manner,  said,  '  I  saw  you  in  Richard  last 
night : '  Kean,  feeling,  not  unnaturally,  that  a 
compliment  was  approaching,  smiled  blandly 
and  bowed.  '  Yes,  sir,'  continued  the  other,  in 
a  slow,  almost  judicial  tone,  '  I  have  seen  your 
father  in  Richard ;  and  I  saw  the  late  ]\Ir. 
Cooke '  —  another  pause,  in  which  Charles 
Kean's  triumph  was  gradually  mounting  higher 
and  higher.  '  Yes,  sir ;  Cooke,  sir,  was  better 
than  your  father;  and  your  father,  sir,  a  long 
way  better  than  you  ! '  " 

Fanny  Kemble,  rising  above  the  prejudices 
of  her  own  education,  could  with  womanly 
generosity  and  intelligence  write  :  — 

"  Kean  is  gone,  and  with  him  are  gone  Othello, 
Shylock,  and  Richard.  .  .  .  Who  that  ever  saw 


THE  HISTRIONIC  RICHARDS.         155 

will  ever  forget  the  fascination  of  his  dying  eyes 
in  Richard^  when  deprived  of  his  sword ;  the 
wondrous  power  of  his  look  seemed  yet  to  avert 
the  uplifted  arm  of  Richmond.  If  he  was  irregu- 
lar and  unartisticlike  in  his  performance,  so  is 
Niagara  compared  with  the  waterworks  of 
Versailles." 

It  is  said  that  an  hour  before  his  death  Kean 
sprang  from  his  couch  crying,  as  Richard,  — 

"  A  horse,  a  horse,  my  kingdom  for  a  horse !  " 

Charles  Kean,  though  "  the  son  of  his 
father,"  was  not  a  chip  of  the  old  block.  He 
attempted  to  follow  in  the  footsteps  of  Ed- 
mund Kean,  and  doubtless  made  his  great 
mistake  in  choosing  those  parts  in  which  he 
would  necessarily  be  compared  unfavorably 
with  that  great  genius.  He  made  his  Ameri- 
can debut  in  '  Richard  HI.,'  but  was  not 
able  to  create  the  enthusiasm  which  attended 
his  father's  performance.  There  seemed  to 
be  a  prophecy  in  the  words  of  Edmund  Kean 
when,  after  acting  Richard  one  night  and  look- 
ing upon  a  little  performance  of  Charles  at 
home,  he  said :  "  The  name  of  Kean  shall 
die  with  me.  It  shall  be  buried  in  my  coffin." 
And  it  was. 

The  stage  has  not  seen  a  great  Richard 
since  Kean's  day ;  that  is  to  say,  an  original, 


156  RICHARD    THE   THIRD. 

powerful  representation,  to  be  compared  with 
Garrick,  Cooke,  or  Kean. 

This  difficult  part  has  been  attempted  by 
nearly  every  Shakespearian  actor,  but  rarely 
with  pronounced  success.  Young,  Cooper, 
Phelps,  Macready,  Forest,  and  J.  B.  Booth  in 
the  earlier  days,  and  Irving,  Lawrence  Barrett, 
Wilson  Barrett,  and  Edwin  Booth  in  recent 
times,  have  been  the  great  histrionic  inter- 
preters of  Shakespeare  in  England  and 
America.  While  any  one  of  these  may  have 
had,  or  may  have  the  talent  to  give  a  clever 
and  acceptable  performance  of  ^  Richard 
III.,'  it  is  doubtful  whether  any  one  of  them 
has  had  the  genius  to  create  a  new,  original, 
and  great  Richard. 

Cooper  had  his  admirers,  who  claimed  that 
Kean  alone  surpassed  him  in  this  character. 
Young  attempted  to  eclipse  Kean's  per- 
formance, but  signally  failed,  though  in  cer- 
tain characters,  on  account  of  his  physical 
advantages,  he  was  Kean's  superior, 

Macready's  talent  was  superior  to  his  ge- 
nius, yet  he  must  rank  with  the  first  of  actors. 
The  stage  has  seldom  if  ever  known  a  greater 
Virginius.  He  performed  every  part  which 
he  undertook  intelligently  and  with  scholarly 
good  taste ;  but  he   could  never  rise  to  the 


THE  HISTRIONIC  RICHARDS.         157 

heights  of  a  Garrick,  a  Cooke,  or  a  Kean  in 
such  trying  and  difficult  characters  as  Othello, 
Shylock,  Lear,  and  Richard  III.  Admirers 
of  Macready  have  claimed  that  he  "  deter- 
mined his  position  as  a  first-class  actor  "  by 
his  performance  of  Richard  III.  He  had 
seen  Kean  in  this  character  and  greatly  ad- 
mired him,  placing  him  above  Cooke.  One 
of  Macready's  merits  was  his  individuality, 
independence,  and  originality.  His  faults 
were  his  own,  as  were  his  merits ;  he  aped 
no  other  actor.  His  style  was  a  medium  be- 
tween Kemble  and  Kean.  He  did  not  possess 
all  the  excellences  of  both,  but  he  avoided 
many  of  their  faults.  He  was  neither  as  cold 
as  Kemble  nor  as  fervent  and  magnetic  as 
Kean ;  yet  he  had  much  of  the  Kemble  dig- 
nity and  scholarly  taste,  with  some  measure  of 
the  spirit  of  Kean.  His  Richard  therefore 
was  a  representation  that  must  be  classed  be- 
tween the  too  princely  Richard  of  the  one 
and  the  too  villanous  Richard  of  the  other. 

There  was  some  rivalry  between  Macready 
and  Kean  in  this  very  part,  and  the  critics 
were  not  slow  to  see  merits  in  the  new  actor 
which  the  old  favorite  did  not  possess.  Leigh 
Hunt's  comparison  of  these  two  representa- 
tions is  undoubtedly  just,  while  it  gives  us  a 


158  RICHARD    THE   THIRD. 

fair   estimate  of  Macready  in  the  character 
of  Richard :  — 

"  Mr.  Kean's  Richard  is  the  more  sombre,  per- 
haps the  deeper  part  of  him  —  Mr.  Macready 's 
the  liveher  and  more  animal  part,  a  very  con- 
siderable one  nevertheless.  Mr.  Kean's  is  the 
more  gloomy  and  reflective  villain,  rendered 
so  by  the  united  effects  of  his  deformity  and 
subtle-mindedness  ;  Mr.  Macready's  is  the  more 
ardent  and  bold-faced  one,  borne  up  by  a  tem- 
perament naturally  high  and  sanguine,  though 
pulled  down  by  mortification.  The  one  has 
more  of  the  seriousness  of  conscious  evil  in  it, 
the  other  of  the  gaiety  of  meditated  success. 
Mr.  Kean's  has  gone  deeper  even  than  the 
relief  of  his  conscience,  he  has  found  melan- 
choly at  the  bottom  of  that  necessity  for  relief ; 
Mr.  Macready's  is  more  sustained  in  his 
troubled  waters  by  constitutional  vigor  and 
buoyancy.  In  short,  Mr.  Kean's  Richard  is 
more  like  King  Richard  darkened  by  the  shadow 
of  his  approaching  success,  and  announcing  by 
the  depth  of  his  desperation  when  it  shall  be 
disputed;  Mr.  Macready's  Richard  is  more  like 
the  Duke  of  Glocester,  brother  to  the  gay  tyrant 
Edward  the  Fourth,  and  partaking  as  much  of 
his  character  as  the  contradictions  of  the  family 
handsomeness  in  his  person  would  allow.  If 
these  two  features  in  the  character  of  Richard 
could  be  united  by  an  actor,  the  performance 
would  be  a  perfect  one." 


THE  HISTRIONIC  RICHARDS.  159 

Indeed,  what  a  performance  that  would  be, 
with  an  actor  possessing  all  the  merits  and 
none  of  the  faults  of  Kean  and  Macready  ! 
But  the  name  of  Macready  never  calls  up  by 
association  the  name  of  Richard  ;  on  the  other 
hand,  "Kean"  and  "Cooke"  are  almost 
synonymous  with  "  Richard." 

There  are  not  a  few  who  look  upon  Junius 
Brutus  Booth  as  the  last,  but  not  the  least,  of 
the  great  Richards  of  the  English  stage. 
Booth's  fame  is  almost  entirely  American. 
He  was  not  able  to  sustain  himself  in  com- 
petition with  Kean  in  England.  He  made 
his  debut  at  Covent  Garden,  London,  in  the 
character  of  Richard,  and  also  made  his  first 
appearance  in  America  in  the  same  character. 
It  is  quite  excusable  in  Mr.  Edwin  Booth  that 
he  should  think  his  gifted  father  had  more 
than  half  gained  the  victory  over  Kean  in 
Richard  and  Lear,  and  carelessly  threw  it 
away  as  a  trifle.  It  may  be  honor  enough 
for  Booth  that  he  was  a  greater  Hamlet  than 
Kean  or  Cooke ;  it  adds  nothing  to  his  fame 
to  vainly  compare  him  with  either  of  these 
geniuses  in  '  Richard  HI.'  Nothwithstand- 
ing  this,  Richard  was  one  of  Booth's  favorite 
and  most  popular  parts,  especially  in  America. 
This  was  generally  his   first-night   character. 


l6o  RICHARD    THE    Tl{H^D. 

In  London,  Richmond,  New  York,  Boston, 
Philadelphia,  and  Pittsburgh,  he  first  appeared 
in  *  Richard  III.'  Booth  was  a  follower  of 
Kean,  if  not  a  very  close  and  slavish  imi- 
tator. He  may  have  had  genius,  but  it  was 
a  genius  without  great  originality  or  power  of 
invention.  He  did  not  strike  out  a  new  line, 
as  did  Garrick,  Kemble,  Kean,  and  Macready. 
He  was  not  unlike  Kean  in  temperament.  He 
was  an  energetic,  magnetic,  impulsive  actor, 
quite  as  erratic  as  Cooke  or  Kean.  He  had 
the  natural,  physical  qualifications  for  the 
character  of  Richard,  and  in  certain  parts 
acted  with  great  power.  Booth  made  his 
*'  points  "  in  scenes  requiring  the  greatest 
action.  He  was  greatest  where  Kean  and 
Garrick  were  greatest,  and,  even  in  these 
scenes,  reminded  his  hearers  of  the  geniuses 
he  imitated  more  than  he  impressed  them 
with  the  originality  and  high  order  of  his  own 
genius.  He  was  not  great  in  the  first  scenes, 
where  Cooke  and  Kemble  were  at  their  best. 
There  was  a  magnetism  in  his  voice,  a  fire  in 
his  eye,  a  significance  in  his  gesture  which 
enabled  him  at  times  to  get  the  better  of  his 
hearers'  judgment,  and  in  spite  of  tricks  and 
misinterpretations,  to  carry  them  away  with 
enthusiasm.      Certain   critics    declared    that 


THE  HISTRIONIC  RICHARDS.         i6l 

"  his  whisper  could  chill  the  blood ; "  "  his 
glance  extort  obedience  ;  "  "  his  very  gesture 
drew  tears."  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
Booth  was  great  in  the  tent  scene  and  battle 
scene  of  '  Richard  III.'  Traditions  and  the 
critics  seem  to  agree  in  pronouncing  the  fight 
one  of  the  most  terrific  and  thrilling  repre- 
sentations ever  witnessed  on  the  stage.  The 
picture  may  not  be  overdrawn  which  Stone 
gives  us  in  his  '  Theatrical  Reminiscences  : ' 

"  The  dying  scene  of  Booth  was  truly  fright- 
ful—  his  eyes,  naturally  large  and  piercing,  ap- 
peared to  have  greatly  increased  in  size,  and 
fairly  gleamed  with  fire ;  large  drops  of  perspi- 
ration oozed  from  his  forehead,  and  coursing 
down  his  cheeks,  mingling  with  and  moistening 
the  ringlets  of  the  wig  he  usually  wore  in  Rich- 
ard, caused  them  to  adhere  to  his  face,  rendering 
his  appearance  doubly  horrible.  The  remark- 
able portrayal  of  the  passions,  —  the  despair, 
hate,  grief,  —  in  the  passage  in  the  original  text 
which  reads  — 

*  But  the  vast  renown  thou 
Hast  acquired  in  conquering 
Richard,  doth  give  him  more, 
Than  the  soul  departing  from  the  body,' 

has   probably  never  been   surpassed   even   by 
George    Frederick   Cooke,   whose   Richard    is 
said  to  have  excelled  all  others." 
II 


l62  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

Mr.  Stone  would  encounter  some  diffi- 
culties in  attempting  to  find  the  lines  quoted 
above  in  the  original  text  of  Shakespeare's 
'  Richard  III.'  But  from  this  bit  of  remi- 
niscence we  learn  that  Booth,  like  the  other 
great  Richards,  made  some  of  his  most  pow- 
erful and  celebrated  "points"  with  the  Colley 
Gibber  interpolations.  Ludlow  has  given  as 
accurate  a  description  of  Booth's  representa- 
tion, as  a  whole,  as  may  perhaps  be  found 
among  reminiscences :  — 

"  When  the  proper  scene  opened,  Mr.  Booth 
walked  on  the  stage,  made  no  recognition  of  the 
reception  applause,  and,  in  an  apparently  medi- 
tative mood  began  the  soliloquy  of  '  Now  is  the 
winter  of  our  discontent,'  which  he  delivered 
with  seeming  indifference,  and  with  little  if  any 
point,  something  after  the  manner  of  a  school- 
boy repeating  a  lesson  of  which  he  had  learned 
the  words,  but  was  heedless  of  their  meaning, 
and  then  made  his  exit,  without  receiving  any 
additional  applause.  I  was  not  where  I  could 
ascertain  the  impression  made  upon  the  audi- 
ence, but  on  the  stage,  at  the  side  scenes,  the 
actors  were  looking  at  each  other  in  all  kinds 
of  ways,  expressive  of  astonishment  and  dis- 
gust. I  was  standing  near  Mr.  Benton,  an  old 
actor,  the  King  Henry  of  the  evening,  —  and 
as  I  turned  to  go  away,  he  said,  •  What  do 
you  think  of  him,   Mr.  Ludlow  ? '     '  Think,'    I 


THE  HISTRIONIC  RICHARDS.         163 

replied,  *  why,  I  think  as  I  thought  before,  that 
he  is  an  impostor !  What  do  yoii  think  of 
him  ? '  '  Why,  sir,'  said  Benton,  '  if  the  re- 
mainder of  his  Richai'd  shall  prove  like  the 
beginning,  I  have  never  yet,  I  suppose,  seen 
the  character  played,  for  it  is  unlike  any  I 
ever  saw;  it  may  be  very  good,  but  I  don't 
fancy  it !'  ...  I  retained  my  first  impression 
of  Mr.  Booth  until  he  came  to  the  fourth 
act,  where,  in  a  scene  with  B2ickingha7n^  he 
hints  at  the  murder  of  the  young  princes. 
Then  I  thought  I  discovered  something  worthy 
of  a  great  actor.  From  that  on,  his  acting 
was  unique  and  wonderful.  I  had  never  seen 
any  one  produce  such  effects,  and  come  so 
near  my  ideas  of  the  character,  —  not  even  Mr. 
Cooke,  who  was  as  far  below  Mr.  Booth  in 
the  last  two  acts  as  he  was  above  him  in  the 
first  three." 

This  seems  a  very  fair  description  and  a 
just  comparison.  But  it  does  not  contradict 
the  claim  that  Booth  was  below  Cooke  in  the 
first  three  acts,  and  below  Kean  in  the  last' 
two.  Cooke  was  the  greatest  Richard  in  the 
first  three  acts ;  Kean  the  greatest  Richard 
in  the  last  two.  Booth  was  not  the  greatest 
Richard  in  any  act,  though  he  may  have  the 
fame  of  standing  next  to  Kean  in  the  parts 
where  Kean  was,  ana  is,  and  doubtless  ever 
will  be,  first. 


164  RICHARD    THE    THIRD. 

The  Primrose  Criticism  merits  our  thanks 
for  having  prompted  the  fresh  investigation, 
which  has  strengthened  our  confidence  in  the 
Shakespearian  authorship  of  'Richard  III.' 
A  tragedy  so  faithful  to  history,  so  clearly  the 
climax  of  a  series  of  plays  of  common  origin, 
so  unified  and  intensified  in  one  great  and 
terrible  character,  so  universally  indorsed  as 
Shakespearian  by  the  poets,  critics,  antiqua- 
rians, and  Shakespearian  editors  of  the  past 
three  hundred  years,  so  popular  with  the 
greatest  histrionic  geniuses  of  the  Enghsh 
stage,  and  so  worthy  of  their  highest  efforts 
and  most  glorious  triumphs,  —  such  a  tragedy 
is  not  unworthy  of  him  who 

"...  was  not  of  an  age,  but  for  all  time.'* 


^  '^  4 


(ETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 
ro—i^-     202  Main  Library 


OAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2                      : 

3 

\ 

5                               ( 

? 

D 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

1-monrh  loant  rr.av  be  ron'MiyerJ  by  calMng  642-3405 

lyear  loan*  may  be  recharned  t>y  bringing  tbe  bco»(s  to  Ihe  Circulation  Dask 

Renewals  anfi  f»cha'Q'*s  ''♦ay  be  made  «  days  pT*or  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

stfd  circ.  APR  2  4  1 

984 

NOV  0tt1992 

DEC  0  :',  1992 

.O!0r<i  !<  /j-r 

iiiiv  n  ft  1999 

NDV  0  ^  7nn? 

i^UV     ^    V    cUUt. 

FEB  0*1999 

MAY  2  9  2003 

NOV  0  2  2001 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
FORM  NO.  DD6,  60m,  1/83  BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


#)i 


U.C.BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


CDblD7a^^7 


